Allowed

Girdharidas N.Jusija v. Kaydeep Conduit Pipes and Ors.

Bombay HC28 Mar 2006S/56/1987

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court decreed a suit for recovery of Rs.50,000/- on two dishonoured bills of exchange drawn by the defendant concern. Liability of minor defendants was limited to the deceased father's estate, and deposited money was ordered for withdrawal.

What did the court decide?

Decree granted for recovery of Rs.50,000/-; liability of minor defendants limited to the estate of their deceased father; deposited amount refundable.

Girdharidas N.Jusija Vs Kaydeep Conduit… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

vss

¶2

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

¶3

SUMMARY SUIT NO.56 OF 1987

¶4

 Girdharidas N. Dusija ... Plaintiff

¶5

 V/s.

¶6

 M/s.Kaydee Conduit Pipes & Ors. ... Defendants

¶7

 Mr.U.J. Makhija for Plaintiff
 None for Defendants

¶8

 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE,J.

¶9

 DATED: MARCH 28, 2006

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

 . The Plaintiff has filed the present suit against
 the defednants for recovery of an amount of Rs.50,000/-.
 Two bills of exchange were drawn in favour of the
 proprietory concern of the plaintiff-M/s.Metalreed
 Corporation by Defendant No.1 drawn by the proprietor of
 M/s.Kaydee Rolling Mills and accepted by the M/s.Kaydee
 Conduit Pipes. Each of the bills were for an amount of
 Rs.25,000/- each. When these bills were presented by
 the plaintiff they were dishonoured. Despite repeated
 demands made by the Plaintiff to the Defendants to repay
 the amount, the defendants have not complied.

¶12

 2. During the pendency of the present proceedings,
 Defendant Nos.3 and 4 have attained majority. Defendant
 No.2 is the widow of the proprietor of Kaydee Rolling
 Mills. She has accepted the bills of exchange.

¶13

 : 2 :

¶14

 3. The plaintiff has produced the originals of the
 bills of exchange & the demand made by the Plaintiff.

¶15

 4. No written statement has been filed by the
 defendants. However, the defendants were granted
 conditional leave to defend the suit on 20.4.1987 by
 directing them to deposit Rs.30,000/- in this Court.
 This Court had also directed that the amount if
 deposited, was to be invested in a nationalised bank.
 Unfortunately, the same has not been done by the
 Prothonotary and Senior Master. Thereby the Plaintiff
 has lost interest on the deposit. The only reason for
 not investing the said amount is that the defendants had
 mentioned in the praecipe that there was no order for
 investment. The Office of this Court is expected to
 check the orders passed by this Court rather than
 relying on the praecipes filed by the litigants or their
 advocates in order to ascertain whether investments are
 to be made.

¶16

 5. In any event, the Plaintiff has proved the
 amount has remained outstanding and is, therefore,
 entitled to a decree. The suit is decreed as prayed
 for. The liability of Defendant Nos.3 and 4 is limited
 to the extent of the estate of their deceased father in
 their hands.

¶17

 : 3 :

¶18

 6. The Plaintiff is at liberty to withdraw the
 amount of Rs.30,000/- which has already been deposited.

¶19

 7. Refund of Court fee as per Rules.

¶20

 8. Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this

¶21

 order.

Girdharidas N.Jusija v. Kaydeep Conduit Pipes and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girdharidas N.Jusija v. Kaydeep Conduit Pipes 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

Pravinchandra Parkhaji Shah Vs Imp Power Ltd.

Vijaya Bank Vs Dipak Ratanshi and Anr.

Vijaya Bank Vs Smt. Asha Dipak Bhatia and Ors.

M/S.Radha v. Co. Vs M/S.Kaydee Conduit Pipes and Ors.

Gopal C. Chabaria Vs Kaydee Condnit Pipe and Ors.

M/S.Beter and Deter ' Vs Indian Marketing Ltd.