Ashok Kumar v. Pasad Vs Sahadev Vakhuba Jadeja — Bombay HC (2007) — LawSathi Research

Disposed

Ashok Kumar v. Pasad v Sahadev Vakhuba Jadeja

Bombay HC3 Apr 2007SJ/73/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This interlocutory order addressed the pendency of a suit for summons for judgment and the status of a security deposit.

What did the court decide?

Direction to keep the deposited amount in a fixed deposit in a nationalized bank during the suit's pendency.

What the court decided

AI extract

:1:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

O.O.C.J.

SUMMONS FOR SUMMARY SUMMONS FOR SUMMARY	JUDGM IN SUIT WITH JUDGM IN SUIT	ENT NO. ENT NO.	NO. 73 1077 NO. 74 1327	OF OF OF OF	2007 2005 2007 2005
ar V. Pasad. V/s.			... Plaintiff.
akhuba Jadeja			... Defendant.

Mr. Ashokkumar V. Pasad.

Mr. Sahadev Vakhuba Jadeja

Mrs. P.U. Badadare i/b. L.M. Acharya for the Plaintiff. Mr. P.V. Palan for the Defendant.

CORAM : DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD,J.

.	A dec	ree was passed in	this case by a	n order
dated	17th	August 2005	. On	a	motion	taken	out	by
the	Defen	dant, the	decree	was	set	aside	by	consent
on	27th	November	2006	subject	to	the		Defendant
depositing		an amo	unt of	Rs.1	,50,000/-	The		amount
has	been	deposited	and in	pu	rsuance	of	the	order
dated	27th	November	2006,	the	amo	unt	has	been
invested	in	a fixed	deposit	of	a	natio	nalised	bank.
The	defence	in	paragraph	4	of the		affidavit	in

reply in the	S	ummons for Judgment	is	that	the
Plaintiff was	a	finance broker to		whom	certain
blank documents		have been furnished.		While	the
Defendant adm	its	his signature, it	has	been	stated
that the con	tents	have been	fra	udulently	and
dishonestly filled		in by the Plaintiff	.	It	has
been averred	that	the blank forms	were	handed	over
to the Plaintiff	to	enable the P	laintiff	to	procure
a loan re	quired	by the Defendant	for	carrying	on
his business.		According to the	Defenda	nt when	the
business was	closed	down, he	called	upon	the
Plaintiff to	return	the blank forms	and	it	now

issues.	The	De	fendant is	accordingly	granted	leave
to de	fend the	suit.	Couns	el appearing	on behalf	of
the	Defendant	how	ever has	no obje	ction to	the
amount,	which		has been	deposited in	pursuance	of
the	order	dated	27th Nove	mber 2006,	continuing	to
remain	in	fixed	deposit du	ring the	pendency of	the
suit.	The	Written	Statement	will be	filed within	a
period	of 8	weeks	from toda	y. The	amount dep	osited