Allowed

Vijay Nai, Prop. M/S. Octadex Products v. Smt. Chaitali a. Banker Prop. M/S. Arrow Marketing

Bombay HC21 Mar 2005SS/3197/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a summary suit over goods supplied by the plaintiff, the court passed a default decree against the absent defendant who failed to appear after service of summons, awarding the principal sum claimed with costs.

What did the court decide?

Decree passed for plaintiff to receive Principal Sum of Rs.3,92,488/- along with all costs of the suit.

Vijay Nai, Prop. M/S. Octadex Products Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

 SUMMARY SUIT NO.3197 OF 2004

¶5

 Vijay Nair Prop M/s Octadex Products .. Plaintiff

¶6

 versus

¶7

 Smt Chaitali A.Banker

¶8

 Prop Arroy Mktg .. Defendant

¶9

 Mr. V.J.Brahmdatt for Plaintiff.

¶10

 None for the Defendant

¶11

 CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J

¶12

 DATED : 21st March 2005.

¶13

P.C:-

¶14

 1. Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff. None

¶15

 present for the defendant. The planitiff has filed on
 record the affidavit of service sworn by Mr.Sudhakar
 Rane bailiff on 16th December, 2004. Despite service,
 the defendant has not filed an appearance thereby
 entitling the plaintiff to a decree under order 37

¶16

¶17

 Rule 2 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶18

 2. The plaintiff has also filed on record the
 original documents alongwith a list. The documents
 are taken on record and collectively marked Exhibit A.

¶19

 3. I have perused the plaint and the documents filed
 on record. As per the defendant’s order the plaintiff
 sold, supplied, and delivered to the defendant goods
 under various invoices. Office copies of the invoices
 and lorry receipt are filed on record. The plaintiff
 has also filed on record xerox copy ’C’ form issued by
 the defendant. The original ’C’ form was handed over
 for the purpose of assessment of sales tax. On the
 reverse of the sales tax form, the defendant has
 signed below the details of the bills for the goods
 supplied. In the circumstances, the plaintiff is
 entitled to a decree in respect of the principal sum.
 I find that there is no contract for payment of
 interest. In view of this, learned counsel for the
 plaintiff gives up the claim for interest.

¶20

 4. Hence, for the reasons mentioned above, I pass the
 following order:

¶21

¶22

 " Suit of the plaintiff is decreed as follows:

¶23

 The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff
 Rs.3,92,488/- and all costs of the suit. "

¶24

 D.G.KARNIK, J

Vijay Nai, Prop. M/S. Octadex Products v. Smt. Chaitali a. Banker Prop. M/S. Arrow Marketing

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Nai, Prop. M/S. Octadex Products v. Smt. Chaitali a. Banker Prop. M/S. Arrow Marketing

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

Mr.Himanshu Sharma and Anar. Vs Mrs. Kalavati P.Kankiya and Anr.

Shivam Video Tech Pvt.Ltd . Vs Nazir Ahmed

Doraiswamy Gurumurthy Vs v. R. Babu and Ors.

Central Basnk of India Vs M/S.Jasmine Enterprises

Arms Advertising Pvt. Ltd. Vs Krishna Plastochem Ltd. and Anr.

etc. Networks Ltd. Vs M/S. Synthiko Exports Pvt. Ltd.