Dismissed

Minaxi Kishor Mehta v. P and P Containers Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Jul 2006SS/733/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Bombay disposed-of a recovery suit over a loan. Addressing objections regarding the deceased plaintiff and the nature of the transaction, the court permitted the suit to proceed and decreed it in terms of the plaintiff's prayer.

What did the court decide?

Summons for judgment granted; suit decreed in terms of prayer clause (a); refund of court fee as per rules.

Minaxi Kishor Mehta Vs P and P Containers Ltd. and… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

-1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH	COURT OF JUDICATURE	AT	BOMBAY
ORDINARY	ORIGINAL CIVIL	JUR	ISDICTION
SUMMONS	FOR JUDGMENT NO.94	OF	2006
	IN
SUMMARY	SUIT NO.733	OF	2003

¶3

Minaxi Kishore Mehta ...Plaintiff v/s P. and P. Containers Ltd. and ors. ...Defendants

¶4

Mr B.B. Saraf with Ms S. Shaikh i/b M/s S.K. Srivastava and Co. for Plaintiff. Mr N.P. Dalvi i/b M/s C.R. Naidu and Co. for Defendant No.1.

¶5

CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH J.

¶6

DATE : 3RD JULY 2006.

¶7

-2-

¶8

P.C. :-

¶9

1.	The	plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery
of the	amount	which was advanced to the	defendants	as
loan on the	basis	of agreement dated 15th	February	2000.
Only two	objections	are raised on be	half of	the
defendants.	The	first objection is that	the	original
plaintiff has	died	and therefore, in vie	w of	the
provisions of	Indian	Succession Act, this sui	t cannot	be
entertained.	In	this very suit, however,	in	chamber
summons No.	880 of	2005 an order dated 31st	August	2005
is passed a	fter con	sidering this aspect. In	my	opinion,
therefore,	this sui	t can proceed. The	second	objection
that is	raised	is that the transaction is	not	loan
transaction.	The	case of the plaintiff is	that she	had
advanced the	loan	to the defendants.	Though	the
defendants cl	aim	that the plaintiff was	carrying	on
moneylending	business	, no evidence has been	produced	by
the defenda	nts to	substantiate that claim.	As ther	e is
no dispute	between	the parties that money	was	actually
advanced by	the	plaintiff to the defendants	, in	my
opinion, there	cou	ld be no defence available	to	the
defendants.	The	defendants are not entitled	for	leave
to defend.	Summons	for judgment is granted	and the	suit

¶10

is decreed in terms of prayer clause (a). Refund of

¶11

-3-

¶12

court fee as per rules.

¶13

. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly

¶14

authenticated by the Associate / Private Secretary as

¶15

true copy.

¶16

. Certified copy expedited.

Minaxi Kishor Mehta v. P and P Containers Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Minaxi Kishor Mehta v. P and P Containers Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rani Moti Advani and Ors. Vs Dr. Pushpa J.Gulrajani and Ors.

Baburao K. Mohite Vs Vaijanta S. Mohite and Ors.

Ramniklal a. Padia and Ors. Vs Vijay a. Gangan and Ors.

Shailesh Chandrakant Nandu Vs M/S. Solus Silks and 4 Ors.

Shailesh Chandrakant Nandu Vs M/S. Beauty Silks and 4 Ors.

Association of Enginering Workers Vs M/S. Killick Nixon Ltd.