The High Court of Bombay, in a notice of motion challenging an ex-parte decree, dismissed the defendant's objection. Finding insufficient reasons to set aside the decree and no viable case on merits, the court upheld the decree and imposed costs.
Notice of Motion dismissed with costs of Rs. 2500/- payable within four weeks.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 126 OF 2006
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO. 3195 OF 2004
Advance Metal Powder ....... Plaintiff
Versus
ISIBARS Limited ....... Defendant
Ms. U.K. Shah with K.D. Shah for Plaintiff.
Mr. Simil Purohit i/by Udwadia & Udeshi for the
Defendant.
CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.
DATE : 16TH NOVEMBER 2006
P.C.
1) I do not find sufficient reasons for setting
aside the exparte decree.
2) Prima facie, even on merits, the defendants do
not have a case. The goods were supplied between 29th
June 2002 to 16th August 2003. There was no reply to
the Advocate’s notice on demand dated 14th January
2004. Letters are now produced which alleged that the
2
goods were defective. There is no acknowledgment of
the letters having been delivered. It is curious that
the Defendant kept accepting the goods for one year
despite all the deliveries containing defective goods.
There is no explanation for the same.
3) Notice of Motion is dimissed with costs of
Rs.2500/- payable within four weeks from today.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the ex-parte decree should be set aside.
Whether the defendant has a case on merits regarding the supply of defective goods.
Whether the objection to the decree is dismissed.
S.J. VAZIFDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court