Allowed

Samir Doshi v. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC22 Nov 2005APP/1022/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal setting aside the impugned order in a Summary Suit. The trial judge was directed to grant inspection of certain contract notes to the defendants and reconsider the summons for judgment on merits after the defendants had an opportunity to meet the evidence.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; Summons for Judgment restored for fresh consideration after inspection of contract notes is granted to defendants.

Samir Doshi Vs Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. and 3 Ors. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

¶2

 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

 APPEAL NO.1022 of 2005
 in
 SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 836 OF 2004
 in
 SUMMARY SUIT NO. 2392 OF 2004

¶4

 Samir Doshi .. Appellant
 (Original defendant no.2)

¶5

 versus

¶6

 Bajaj Hindusthan Limited & ors.. Respondents

¶7

 ...
 Mr. Milind Vasudeo i/b M/s.Rajani & Associates for
 the Appellant.

¶8

 Mr.Virag Tulzapurkar, Counsel a/w Mr.Snehal Shah i/b
 M/s.Dhru & Co for the Respondent no.1

¶9

 Mr.C.S.Balsara a/w Mr.Vivek Kantawala i/b M/s. V.
 Kantawala & Co for Respondent nos. 2 & 3.

¶10

CORAM : R.M. LODHA AND
 D.G. KARNIK, JJ
DATED : 22nd November 2005.

¶11

 P.C.:

¶12

 Admit.

¶13

 2. M/s.Dhru & Co. waives service for
 respondent no.1. M/s.V. Kantawala & Co. waives
 service for respondent no.2 and 3. Service on the
 respondent no.4 is dispensed with being a formal

¶14

 party and appeal is heard finally at this stage.

¶15

 3. Interalia, the grievance raised by the
 learned counsel for the appellant in challenging the
 impugned order is that the learned trial Judge
 considered the contract notes which were neither
 produced along with the affidavit nor in respect
 thereof inspection was given to the appellant.
 Rather no opportunity was given to the appellant to
 have their say in respect of contract notes that were
 produced by the plaintiff during the course of
 hearing of Summons for Judgement.

¶16

 3. The learned counsel for the plaintiff
 (respondent no.1) fairly conceded that the
 inspection of the contract notes upon which

¶17

 reliance has been placed by the learned trial Judge
 was not given to the defendants.

¶18

 4. Having reflected over the matter, we are
 of the view that the impugned order cannot be
 sustained and has to be set aside as the learned
 trial Judge took into consideration the contract
 notes without affording an opportunity to the
 defendants to meet the said documents. Admittedly,
 neither copies of the contract notes were given to

¶19

 the defendants nor inspection of the contract notes
 was provided by the plaintiff to the defendants.

¶20

 5. We accordingly set aside the impugned order
 on the short ground afore-noticed and restore the
 Summons for Judgement no. 836 of 2004 for fresh
 consideration by the learned trial Judge.

¶21

 6. We record and accept the statement of the
 Counsel for the plaintiff (respondent no.1) that
 inspection of contract notes shall be given to the
 defendants within one week from today.

¶22

 7. Liberty to the defendants to apply to the
 learned trial Judge for filing additional
 affidavit or further material after the inspection

¶23

 of the contract notes is completed.

¶24

 8. No costs.

¶25

 (R.M. LODHA, J)

¶26

 (D.G. KARNIK, J)

Samir Doshi v. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samir Doshi v. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India Vs M/S. Khannoco Steel Merchants Pvt.Ltd.

Dr.Durgaprasad Shivdutt Rai Dadhich Vs Angelica M. Fernandes

Vinay a. Rathi Vs Narendra Balubhai Panchal and Ors.

Paresh Khandwala Vs Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Mafatlal Finance Co. Ltd. Vs Gujrat State Financial Corpn.

lalji dairy and farms Pvt. Ltd. Vs satish k. kothari (huf) and 10 Ors.