In a summary suit for deposit withdrawal, the court held that the Plaintiff's seek to withdraw deposited funds relying solely on an undertaking was insufficient, resulting in the dismissal of the notice of motion.
The notice of motion for withdrawal of deposited amount was dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2942 OF 2003
IN
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1606 OF 2001
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO.2655 OF 1991
M/s.Shraddha Enterprises....Plaintiff
V/s.
Hotel Horizon Pvt.Ltd.....Defendant
Mr.S.S. Lanke for the Plaintiff.
Mr.Diwakar Dwivedi for the Defendant.
CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.
DATED : 21ST NOVEMBER, 2006.
P.C. :
1.The Plaintiff seeks to withdraw the amount
deposited by the Defendant in this summary suit.
Merely furnishing an undertaking to bring the money
back cannot be permitted.
2.In the circumstances, the Notice of Motion is
dismissed.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a notice of motion seeking withdrawal of deposited amount by an undertaking can be granted.
Whether the notice of motion is maintainable in the summary suit.
S.J. VAZIFDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court