Allowed

Hardeep Singh Bhurji v. M/S Shree Ganesh Forgingsltd.

Bombay HC16 Mar 2005SS/2582/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a summons for judgment suit for recovery based on bills, the court found the defendant absent and failed to contest. The court deemed the plaint averments admitted and decreed the suit for the principal sum with future interest under Section 34 CPC.

What did the court decide?

Defendant directed to pay Plaintiff Rs. 56,196.32 with 9% interest from the date of suit till payment and all costs.

Hardeep Singh Bhurji Vs M/S Shree Ganesh Forgingsltd. — Money Laundering | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

 SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 551 OF 2003

¶4

IN

¶5

 SUMM.SUIT NO.2582 OF 2001

¶6

 Hardeep Singh Bhurji .. Plaintiff

¶7

 versus

¶8

 M/s Shree Ganesh Forgings Ltd ..Defendant

¶9

 Mrs.Bharti Thakkar for Plaintiff.

¶10

 CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J

¶11

 DATED : 16th March 2005.

¶12

P.C:-

¶13

 1. Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff. None
 present for the defendant. The plaintiff has filed on
 record the affidavit of service dated 30th June 2003.
 Despite service, the defendant has not applied for
 leave to defend nor filed any affidavit in reply. In
 the circumstrances, the plaintiff is entitled to a
 decree under order 37 Rule 3 (6) of the Code of Civil
 Procedure.

¶14

¶15

 2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff hands in the
 original documents in a compilation. The documents
 are taken on record and and collectively marked A.

¶16

 3. I have perused the plaint and the documents filed
 on record. As per the defendant’s order the plaintiff
 carried out certain work and issued the bills. The
 bills were received by the defendant and bear the
 signature of the defendant and in some cases there is
 signature of the defendant with a rubber stamp. The
 defendant did not make the payment of the bills.
 Hence, the plaintiff has filed this suit for the
 recovery of the money due under the bills. In the
 absence of any affidavit in reply averments made in
 the plaint are deemed to have been admitted. The
 plaintiff therefore is entitled to a decree in respect
 of the principal sum. As there is no agreement for
 interest, the plaintiff has given up the claim for
 past interest. As regards future interest it would be
 governed by section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
 Hence, I pass the following order :

¶17

 Summons for Judgment is made absolute and suit
 of the plaintiff is decreed as follows :

¶18

¶19

 " The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff a
 sum of Rs.56,196.32 together with interest
 thereon at 9 % p.a. from the date of the suit
 till payment and all costs of the suit."

¶20

 D.G.KARNIK, J

Hardeep Singh Bhurji v. M/S Shree Ganesh Forgingsltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hardeep Singh Bhurji v. M/S Shree Ganesh Forgingsltd.

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

Hemant K. Nanavati Vs M/S. Indico Construction Co. and Ors.

Anil H.Shah Vs Kancast Pvt.Ltd.

Shri Chitrayan K.Paul Vs Shri v.Kandaswamy

Jet Airways (I) P.Ltd. Vs Capt. B.K.Choudhary

Vivek Enterprises Vs Krishnakumar Nathmal and Ors.

M/S Shree Nursinghsahay Mudungopal (Bombay) Vs M/S Pune Industrial Distibutors P.Ltd.