In this appeal regarding a summary suit for recovery, the High Court of Bombay dismissed the appeal challenging the learned trial Court's order granting conditional leave to defend. The Court found no merit in the challenge as the order was not unfair or unjust.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
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
APPEAL NO. 553 OF 2007 IN SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 154 OF 2007 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 3254 OF 2006
Kulbhushan Gupta ...Appellant (Ori. Defendant) V/s. ... Dnyansagar Litho Press Respondent (Ori. Plaintiff)
Mr. A.C. Singh i/by Mr. S.R. Saudagar for the Appellant
Mr. K.K. Tated for the Respondent.
CORAM: J.N. PATEL AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE: AUGUST 17, 2007
P.C .:-
1
against the appellant (defendant) for recovery of a sum of Rs.25,59,848/- with further interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit on the principal amount of Rs.17,74,718/- till date of payment and/or realisation. The suit claim is based on the fact that the appellant (defendant) placed an order for printing of publicity material for his picture “ Police Force – An Inside Story ” by his letter dated 11th October, 2003; and as per the order placed by the appellant (defendant), the plaintiff prepared all the publicity material for the defendant and handed over the same to various parties; and in spite of the plaintiff having called upon the defendant to make payment of the outstanding amount of Rs.22,74,718/-, he has failed to pay the same. The plaintiff has pleaded that the defendant, by his letter dated 15th October, 2006, has admitted his liability to the tune of Rs.22,74,718/-, and made part-payment of Rs.5 lakhs to the plaintiff and plaintiff's sister concern. In spite of that, he has failed to pay balance amount. It is also the case of the plaintiff that at the instance of the defendant, one of his distributors has paid certain amount, which has been accounted for and a sum of Rs.17,74,718/- is outstanding to the
2
plaintiff along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum; and as it is an admitted claim, summary suit under provisions of Order XXXVII, Rule 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, came to be filed.
3
the claim of the plaintiff would not be in excess of an amount of Rs.6,84,000/-, the learned trial Court granted leave to defend the suit to the appellant, subject to depositing an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- within a period of two months with liberty to the plaintiff to withdraw an amount of Rs.6,84,000/- on furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Prothonotary and Senior Master.
J.N. PATEL, J.
A.A. SAYED, J.
4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the learned trial Court acted unfairly or unjustly in granting conditional leave to defend the summary suit.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kulbhushan Gupta
Dnyansagar Litho Press
J.N. Patel
A.A. Sayed
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
