Disposed

Bombay Intelligence Security India Ltd. v. M/S. Vignesh Impex Pvt. Ltd.

Bombay HC12 Jul 2005SJ/832/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order summarizing a suit for recovery of security guards' fees. Plaintiff claims breach of 1998 contract for unpaid Jan-March 2001 dues via Order XXXVII CPC. Court finds original contract likely lapsed, noting lack of renewal documentation; acknowledgement insufficient to prove subsistence of terms. Rejects summary application. Grants leave to defend.

What did the court decide?

Granted unconditional leave to defend the suit and transferred to commercial causes list.

Bombay Intelligence Security India Ltd. Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

 ((-1-))

¶2

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

¶3

 SUMMONS FOR JUDGEMENT NO.832 OF 2003
 IN
 SUMMARY SUIT NO.1739 OF 2003

¶4

 Bombay Intelligence Sec.
 India Limited Plaintiff

¶5

 versus

¶6

 Vignesh Impex Pvt. Ltd. Defendant

¶7

 Mr.R.D.Suvarna for plaintiff.

¶8

 Mr.K.T.Jagose for defendant.

¶9

 CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.

¶10

 DATE : 12th July 2005

¶11

 PC :

¶12

 1. The plaintiff is a Security Guards Agency.

¶13

 It is filing this suit invoking Order XXXVII of
 the CPC for recovering a sum on a written
 contract for providing security guards to the
 defendant factory. The terms and conditions
 according to the plaintiff are evidenced by a
 written contract at Exhibit-A. The charges are
 mentioned therein. At the foot of Exhibit-A, the
 defendants were to sign accepting the terms.
 According to the plaintiff, the terms were
 accepted and therefore, guards have been sent in

¶14

 ((-2-))

¶15

 pursuance thereof. However, charges for the
 month of January 2001, February 2001 and March
 2001 have not been paid. Accordingly, a demand
 was raised and by letter at Exhibit-C dated 4th
 April 2001, the defendant agreed to pay the
 unpaid bills within a period of one week from the
 date of said letter. The amount was not paid and
 therefore, a demand notice was sent on 18th
 December 2001.

¶16

 2. In response to this notice the advocate for
 defendant gives a reply in which in para no.1 it
 is admitted by the defendants that security
 guards were provided but claim could not have
 been raised, according to the defendants, on the
 Director of Company. He denies of giving any
 assurance to clear the alleged dues. That apart,
 a grievance is made that the guards were not
 provided on time and that there were lapses in
 the security.

¶17

 3. There is a further letter of 11th June 2002
 in which the demand is reiterated by the
 plaintiff.

¶18

 4. In my view, letter at Exhibit-A dated 22nd
 April 1998 clearly states that duration of the

¶19

 ((-3-))

¶20

 contract is one year. The said letter cannot be
 said to be a contract inasmuch as it records
 certain terms unilaterally determined by the

¶21

 plaintiff. It is not averred in the plaint that
 this contract was renewed. If the contract was

¶22

 renewed, as indeed it is according to the
 plaintiff, then no documents in that behalf are
 forth-coming. Acknowledgement would not carry
 the matter any further in the absence of written
 contract setting out terms and conditions and
 more particularly it’s subsistence on the
 relevant date. Triable issues arise for
 consideration. Unconditional leave to defend.
 Suit transferred to the list of commercial
 causes. Usual directions to file written

¶23

 statement, discovery and inspection.

¶24

 (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

Bombay Intelligence Security India Ltd. v. M/S. Vignesh Impex Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bombay Intelligence Security India Ltd. v. M/S. Vignesh Impex Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Forties Financial Services Ltd. Vs M/S Good Value Marketing Co.Ltd. and Anr.

Icici Bank Ltd. Vs Dr. Sushil S. Shirodkar

Bank of India Vs Dinesh K. Wagh and Anr.

Rajmani R.Nair Vs Smita S.Patil and Anr.

Mrs. S. Umavati Shetty and Ors. Vs Salauddin Mohamed Sami

Ashok R. Shah Vs Vandanbhai P. Gosalia