Allowed

Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Pavan Kumar Gupta

Bombay HC16 Jul 2007S/2334/1988

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court decreed a suit for Rs. 9,36,751.04 filed by Steel Authority of India Ltd. against Pavan Kumar Gupta for payment of steel supplied. The suit was filed via default due to the defendant's absence. The Court held no impediment existed under Order 8 CPC and allowed the decree.

What did the court decide?

Decree granted in terms of prayer clause (a) for the sum of Rs. 9,36,751.04.

Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs Pavan Kumar… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 O.O.C.J.

¶2

 Suit No. 2334 of 1988

¶3

 Steel Authority of India Ltd. ..Plaintiff

¶4

vs.

¶5

 Pavan Kumar Gupta ..Defendant

¶6

 Ms.B.Lobo with Mr.Sangram Suryavanshi i/b Mulla and Mulla
 for plaintiff.

¶7

 None for defendant.

¶8

CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARIJ.
16th July, 2007

¶9

P.C.

¶10

 1. Steel Authority of India Ltd., the original plaintiff,
 has filed the present suit against the defendant praying
 for a decree for the sum of Rs.9,36,751.04 on the basis
 that the plaintiff had supplied diverse quantities of
 steel after there was an offer made on 29th July, 1987.
 After the offer was accepted, the defendant handed over
 two cheques, details of which are set out in the plaint,
 to the plaintiff. On the basis of the cheques which were
 forwarded, the defendant took delivery of the consignment
 from the plaintiff’s Mulund Stockyard from 4th to 6th
 August, 1987. However, in the mean while, the cheques,
 upon presentation, by the defendant’s banker were
 dishonoured. It was also revealed that excess quantity
 1.76 M.T. of iron and steel of the value of Rs.6298.76
 paise was taken delivery of and that is how the plaintiffs

¶11

 are claiming the principal sum of Rs. 7.86,298.71 and
 interest at 24% p.a. in accordance with the terms.

¶12

 2. The original documents apart from the duplicate signed
 letter of offer are filed. The duplicates have been
 produced by the plaintiffs from their custody and it is
 duly signed by the very Branch Manager. The quantity
 supplied including the demands of the defendant and terms
 are recorded. The suit is based upon the transaction
 between the parties pursuant to this letter of offer. The
 document evidencing lifting of the stock including
 delivery challans are filed on record. The original
 challans with the bankers’ endorsement and correspondence
 between the parties has also been placed on record.

¶13

 3. The plaintiff’s Advocate submits that despite receipt
 of writ of summons no written statement is filed and none
 is appearing for the defendants to cross examine the
 plaintiff’s concerned officers although they are available
 for the same.

¶14

 4. She submits that the reply to the suit notice raised
 certain issues but the defendants despite contending that
 the amounts are not payable have not come forward to make
 good their case in the reply to the suit notice dated 15th
 December, 1987.

¶15

 5. The original documents are taken onrecord and marked

¶16

 "X" for identificatuion so also the affidavit which is

¶17

 taken on record is marked "Y" for identification.

¶18

 6. There will be decree as prayed in as much as there is
 no impediment in law for this Court to exercise its powers
 under Order 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Claim in
 the suit is not barred by limitation nor is anything there
 on record to show that this Court has no jurisdiction to
 entertain and try the suit. Hence, the following order.

¶19

 7. The suit stands decreed in terms of prayer clause (a).
 Advocate’s costs to be computed as per rules. Refund of
 court fees also to be computed and paid in terms of rules.

¶20

(S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)

Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Pavan Kumar Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Pavan Kumar Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

jayant n. shah Vs new usha kiran co-op hsg. soc.ltd

Lalit Timothy D Souza Vs M/S. Vaithara Builders and Anr.

Maruti Countrywide Auto Financial Services Ltd. Vs Damodar Narayanswami Naidu

Mr. Lalitkumar P. Bhatt Vs Smt. Ilaben v. Pandya and Ors.

Madhavlal N. Pittie Vs Vardharaj Yellappa Amin

Shamji Roopa Patel Vs M/S. Head Multimedia Ltd.