Allowed

Micky Khemchand Lalla v. Bob Cards Ltd.

Bombay HC10 Oct 2007APP/706/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against an ex parte summons for judgment in a suit for money payable on credit cards. The court quashed the order, restored the summons to file, and allowed the appellant to secure a leave to defend upon depositing Rs. 1,50,000.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order setting aside the Ex Parte summons shall be set aside; the Suit Summons No.4038 of 2003 shall be restored to file pending appropriate disposal.

Micky Khemchand Lalla Vs Bob Cards Ltd. — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

 - 1 -

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 O.O.C.J.

¶4

 APPEAL NO.706 OF 2005

¶5

IN

¶6

 SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.116 OF 2004

¶7

IN

¶8

 SUMMARY SUIT NO.4038 OF 2003

¶9

 Micky Khemchand Lalla ...Appellant

¶10

 v/s.

¶11

 Bob Cards Limited ...Respondent

¶12

 Mr.Rajiv Matkar for the Appellant.

¶13

 None for the Respondent.

¶14

CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH&
 J.H.BHATIA, JJ.

¶15

DATED:10TH OCTOBER, 2007

¶16

 - 2 -

¶17

P.C.:

¶18

 1. This Appeal is directed against the order dated
 20-1-2005 passed in Summons for Judgment No.116 of
 2004. By that order, in the absence of any reply
 filed by the Appellant, the court has granted the
 summons for judgment and decreed the suit.

¶19

 2. The suit was based on the bills, which according
 to the Plaintiff, were payable on account of
 transactions carried out on the credit-card. Perusal
 of the plaint shows that no where it is disclosed as
 to how interest has been charged. It further appears
 that in stead of interest, service charges have been
 charged at the rate of 2.75%.

¶20

 3. The Appellant has explained the circumstances in
 which the Appellant was not in a position to file his
 reply. He has also expressed his willingness to
 deposit the amount of principal, which appears to be
 about Rs.92,000/- with reasonable rate of interest.

¶21

 4. The Respondent has been served. Notice has also

¶22

 - 3 -

¶23

 been given by the Appellant to the advocate appearing
 for the Respondent that the matter is to be heard
 finally today. But none appears for the Respondent.

¶24

 5. Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, in
 our opinion, following order would meet the ends of
 justice.

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

 (i) On the Appellant depositing in this court, with
 due notice to the Plaintiff, an amount of
 Rs.1,50,000/- within a period of fifteen weeks from
 today, the order impugned in the Appeal shall stand
 set aside and the Summons for Judgment No.116 of 2004
 shall stand restored to file.

¶27

 (ii) The Appellant/Defendant shall file his
 application for leave to defend in the Summons for
 Judgment within a period of three weeks from the date
 of deposit of the amount. Summons for Judgment
 shall, thereafter, be placed before the appropriate
 court for disposal in accordance with law.

¶28

 (iii) If the Appellant fails to deposit the amount,

¶29

 - 4 -

¶30

 as directed above, this Appeal shall be treated as
 dismissed.

¶31

 (iv) In case the amount is deposited, the Plaintiff
 shall be permitted to withdraw the amount on
 furnishing an undertaking to redeposit the amount, if
 so directed by this Court and on such terms and
 conditions as may be directed by this Court.

¶32

 (v) Appeal disposed of.

¶33

 (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)

¶34

 (J.H.BHATIA, J.)

Micky Khemchand Lalla v. Bob Cards Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Micky Khemchand Lalla v. Bob Cards Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mcdermott International Inc. Vs Oil and Natural Gas Commission

Narendrkumar R.Parashar Vs Asha S.Vyas

Radha Ballabh Chiranjilal Vs Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd.

Mun.Corpn.of Greater Mumbai Vs M/S.Kulkarni and Co.

M/S.Ajdev Investments and Financial Service P.Ltd. Vs Jamnadas Sakalachand and Ors.

MOOlcHAND K Ranka and Ors. Vs Manohar Vithal Telang