Partly allowed

M/S R.S.Jhaveri and Co. v. M/S Ferro-Concrete Co. (India) Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC14 Mar 2005APP/328/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay set aside an ex-parte decree previously granted under Order VIII Rule 2 CPC against the appellant. The appellant was granted time to file a written statement, with pleas on merits left open and rights against other defendants reserved.

What did the court decide?

The ex-parte decree against Defendant No.2 is set aside and six weeks are granted to file a written statement.

M/S R.S.Jhaveri and Co. Vs M/S… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

:1:

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

 APPEAL (L) NO.164 OF 2005
 IN
 SUIT NO.1665 OF 1988

¶4

 M/s.R.S.Jhaveri & Co. ..Appellant.
 (Orig. Deft.No.2)
 Vs.

¶5

 M/s.Ferro-Concrete Co.(India)
 fLtd. ..Respondent No.1
 (Orig.Plaintiff)
 M/s.Daval ..Respondent No.5
 (Orig.Deft.No.1)

¶6

 Mr.Somani i/b.Vinod Juwale, Advocate for the
 Appellant.

¶7

 Mr.R.Narichania, Advocate for the Respondents.

¶8

 CORAM: A.P.SHAH AND
S.J.VAZIFDAR, JJ.

¶9

DATED: 14TH MARCH, 2005
P.C. :

¶10

 This is an appeal preferred by original

¶11

 Defendant No.2 against the order of the learned
 single Judge granting an ex-parte decree in
 Plaintiff’s favour against Defendant No.2 under
 Order VIII Rule 2 of the C.P.C. in the sum of
 Rs.23,44,944/- with interest at 12% per annum on the
 principal sum of Rs.19,88,952/- from the date of the
 suit till realisation.

¶12

:2:

¶13

 2. The impugned order records that the Advocate for
 the Plaintiff stated that Defendant No.1 is a formal
 party and that no decree may be passed against him.

¶14

 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Plaintiff
 fairly conceded, and it is obvious that there was
 some misunderstanding on the part of all concerned.
 Defendant No.1 admittedly is not a formal party. If
 anyone, it is Defendant No.2 who could possibly be
 considered to be a formal party. Admittedly,
 Defendant No.2 was only an agent in respect of the
 said transaction. As it is obvious to all concerned
 that there was some misunderstanding, it is
 necessary to set aside the impugned decree passed by
 the learned single Judge and the same is hereby set
 aside.

¶15

 4. Defendant No.2 is granted six weeks time to file
 written statement.

¶16

 5. This order is without prejudice to Plaintiff’s
 right to apply for ex-parte decree against Defendant
 No.1.

¶17

 6. All contentions on merits are left open to the
 parties.

M/S R.S.Jhaveri and Co. v. M/S Ferro-Concrete Co. (India) Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S R.S.Jhaveri and Co. v. M/S Ferro-Concrete Co. (India) Ltd. and Anr.

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

Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai and Ors. Vs Vidyadhar Pandurang Rane

Kiran Ranchhoddas Ganatra Vs Rajan a. Ruvala and Ors.

Nagdevi Kamgar Sabha Vs K. M. Desai, Chairman Board of Arbitration and Ors.

Mrs. Lily a. Ghosh Vs Smt. Surajben N. Shah and Ors.

Madura Coats Employees Union and Anr. Vs Madura Coats Ltd.and Anr.

Oyster Marine Inc. Vs the Shipping Corporation of India Ltd.