Allowed

Idl Industries Ltd. v. K.L.Wadhi and Co.P.Ltd.and Anr.

Bombay HC4 Jul 2005SS/233/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Summary suit wherein plaintiff claimed over a crores. Court noted defendants failed to deposit requisite security sum of Rs.90 lakh within stipulated time after being granted conditional leave to defend. Court ruled plaintiff is entitled to decree, refund of court fees and advocates' costs.

What did the court decide?

Decree passed as prayed; refund of court fees and advocates' costs granted; office directed to place non-deposit certificate on record.

Idl Industries Ltd. Vs K.L.Wadhi and Co.P.Ltd.and Anr. — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

 ((-1-))

¶2

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

¶3

 SUMMARY SUIT NO.233 OF 2002

¶4

 IDL Industries Limited Plaintiff

¶5

 versus

¶6

 K.L.Wadhi & Co. Pvt. Ltd. & another Defendants

¶7

 Mr.K.K.Tated for plaintiff with Vinay Rathi for
 plaintiff.

¶8

 None for defendants.

¶9

 CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.

¶10

 DATE : 4th July 2005

¶11

 PC :

¶12

 1. Mr.Tated tenders original documents along

¶13

 with list. Same are taken on record and marked
 "X" for identification.

¶14

 2. Mr.Tated states that in this summary suit
 whereunder more than a crore of rupees is claimed
 from the defendants, Summons for Judgement was
 taken out and after hearing the plaintiff as well
 as defendants this Court by order dated 16th June
 2004 granted conditional leave to the defendants
 to defend the suit on their depositing a sum of
 Rs.90.00 lakh in this Court. That order has not

¶15

 ((-2-))

¶16

 been complied with. Neither is there any
 application made to extend time nor the order is
 challenged any further.

¶17

 3. I have perused the order passed on the
 Summons for Judgement wherein after noting rival
 contentions, this Court granted liberty to the
 defendants to make good their case provided they
 deposit a sum of Rs.90.00 lakh. It is clear that
 the suit was maintainable as a summary suit. It
 is further clear that this Court after
 considering the rival contentions passed the
 aforesaid order. The condition being not
 complied with, the consequences are also provided
 in the same order.

¶18

 4. There will be a decree as prayed. Non
 Deposit Certificate although applied for is not
 being made available, according to Mr.Tated,
 appearing for the plaintiff.

¶19

 5. In the light of the order passed on the
 Summons for Judgement and further time stipulated
 therein having long expired, the plaintiff is
 entitled to a decree as prayed. Refund of court
 fees as well as computation of advocates’ costs
 as per rules.

¶20

 ((-3-))

¶21

 6. Office to place non deposit certificate on
 record of this suit within a period of one week
 from today.

¶22

 (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

Idl Industries Ltd. v. K.L.Wadhi and Co.P.Ltd.and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idl Industries Ltd. v. K.L.Wadhi and Co.P.Ltd.and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gangaram M.Purohit Vs K.B.Purohit and Ors. and State Bank of India

Rajan M. Talreja Vs M/S. Gokaldas Pherumal and Ors.

Sneha Rajan Talreja Vs M/S. Gokaldas Pherumal and Ors.

Bank of India Vs Ramesh C. K. Babu

Shanta H.Jain Vs a.R.Thakkar Farsan,Sweet and Bakery and Anr.

Kanji R. Kacha Vs Pravinchandra M. Kanani