The court decreed a summary suit for recovery of Rs.50,000/- based on a bill of exchange. Entitlement was established as Defendants failed to reply to the demand notice or the suit despite being granted conditional leave to defend, resulting in default judgment.
Suit decreed as prayed for; defendants ordered to deposit refund of court fee.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
vss
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
SUMMARY SUIT NO.83 OF 1987
M/s.Radhav V. Company ... Plaintiff
V/s.
M/s.Kaydee Conduit Pipes & Ors. ... Defendants
Ms.K.S. Lalwani for Plaintiff
None for Defendant
CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE,J.
DATED: MARCH 28, 2006
P.C.:
. This suit has been filed for recovery of a sum
of Rs.50,000/-. One bill of exchange was issued in
favour of the plaintiff by Defendant No.1 and accepted
by Defendant No.2. The defendants were granted
conditional leave to defend the suit on their depositing
a sum of Rs.30,000/-. However, this amount has not been
deposited by the defendants although directed by order
dated 20.4.1987.
2. The Plaintiff has tendered the original bill of
exchange dated 24.5.1985 and the demand notice which are
taken on record and marked Exhibit A collectively.
There is no reply to either the demand notice or to the
present Suit. In these circumstances, the plaintiff is
entitled to decree as prayed.
3. Suit is decreed as prayed for.
: 2 :
4. Refund of Court fee as per Rules.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the suit filed for recovery of Rs.50,000/- should be decreed in the absence of Defendant's reply and failure to deposit required amount.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Nishita Mhatre
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court