Allowed

Mrs. Rupal R.Shroff Prop. of Chandra Enterprises v. Collins and Company and Ors. .

Bombay HC6 Jul 2005SS/3326/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a summary suit, the defendants failed to deposit the awarded sum of Rs. 96,000 within the stipulated period and could not negotiate a settlement. The court held that having availed all opportunities to defend, the plaintiff was entitled to the decree as prayed.

What did the court decide?

Decree as prayed for the plaintiff; original documents marked; refund of court fees; computation of advocates' costs.

Mrs. Rupal R.Shroff Prop. of Chandra… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

 ((-1-))

¶2

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

¶3

 SUMMARY SUIT NO.3326 OF 2002

¶4

 Mrs.Rupal Rupesh Shroff Plaintiff

¶5

 versus

¶6

 Collins and Company and others Defendants

¶7

 Mr.Vijay Sonpal for plaintiff.

¶8

 Mr.Ashish Panikar i/by Khaitan & Jaykar for
 defendants.

¶9

 CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.

¶10

 DATE : 6th July 2005

¶11

 PC :

¶12

 1. Heard Mr.Sonpal for plaintiff and Mr.Panikar
 for defendants. Mr.Sonpal informs that in this
 summary suit a summons for judgement was taken
 out. On that summons for judgement this Court
 passed an order granting conditional leave to the
 defendants to defend. That order directs payment
 of Rs.96,000/- within a period of eight weeks
 from the date of order. Mr.Sonpal informs that
 that period has expired long time back. Amount
 is not deposited. There is no appeal challenging
 that order. There is no application made seeking
 extension of time. Consequently, the plaintiff

¶13

 ((-2-))

¶14

 is entitled to a decree as prayed.

¶15

 2. On the last occasion this matter had appeared
 under the same caption but defendants’ advocate
 purported to appear at that stage, for
 defendants. It was brought to their notice that
 Vakalatnama cannot be accepted at this stage.
 However, learned advocate stated that he would
 like to seek instructions from the defendants
 with regard to complying with the order passed by
 this Court. The matter was adjourned till today
 on payment of costs of Rs.5,000/-. Condition
 precedent.

¶16

 3. Today, Mr.Panikar informs that the costs of
 Rs.5,000/- would be paid during the course of the
 day.

¶17

 4. He further states that defendants are unable
 to pay a sum of Rs.96,000/- straight way but
 would pay the same in instalments of Rs.10,000/-.
 Mr.Sonpal on taking instructions from the
 plaintiff’s representative who is present in the
 Court, states that the plaintiffs are not
 agreeable to settle the claim by this mode.

¶18

 5. Mr.Sonpal states that the claim in the suit

¶19

 ((-3-))

¶20

 is for Rs.1,47,631.33 Ps. and therefore,
 plaintiffs are unable to accept Rs.96,000/- in

¶21

 full and final settlement of their claim.

¶22

 6. In the light of the aforesaid, there will be
 a decree as prayed. It is clear that all
 opportunities given to the defendant to defend
 the claim have been availed of. They have not
 abided by the conditions imposed in the order
 passed by this Court. Consequently, the
 plaintiff is entitled to judgement. Original
 documents along with list taken on record and
 marked "X" for identification. There will be a

¶23

 decree as prayed. Refund of court fees and

¶24

 computation of advocates’ costs as per rules.

¶25

 (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

Mrs. Rupal R.Shroff Prop. of Chandra Enterprises v. Collins and Company and Ors. .

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Rupal R.Shroff Prop. of Chandra Enterprises v. Collins and Company and Ors. .

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

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

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

Kanji R. Kacha Vs Pravinchandra M. Kanani

Comfil Industries Vs the Niphad Sahakari Sakhar Kharkhana Ltd.

Ramesh H.Bhanushali Vs the Gujrat State Wairehousing Corpn.

The City Union Bank Ltd. Vs M/S Suraj Plastowelds and Ors.