Dismissed

Shah Hansraj Vajpar and 4 Ors. v. Ajay Navinchandra Gogri

Bombay HC3 Apr 2008APP/695/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay summarily dismissed an appeal filed by Shah Hansraj Vajpar and Sons and ors. against a judgment of the learned Single Judge decreeing a summary suit for recovery of a debt and interest. The Court held that the appellants could not establish their contention that the confirmation of balance amount was done to help the plaintiff for income tax purposes. Since t

What did the court decide?

Appeal summarily dismissed; impugned order confirming claim of respondent-bank affirmed.

Shah Hansraj Vajpar and 4 Ors. Vs Ajay Navinchandra Gogri — Money Laundering | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

:1:

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

APPEAL NO.695 OF 2007

¶4

¶5

SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.449 OF 2005

¶6

¶7

SUMMARY SUIT NO.1273 OF 2005

¶8

Shah Hansraj Vajpar and Sons and ors.

¶9

....Appellants.

¶10

Vs.

¶11

Ajay Navinchandra Gogri.

¶12

....Respondent.

¶13

Kamal Khata along with Mr.H.V.Chande for the Appellant.

¶14

Mr.P.M.Shah for the Respondent.

¶15

CORAM :SRI.R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR & SRI.R.S.MOHITE, JJ.

¶16

DATE : 3rd April,2008.

¶17

PC :

¶18

Heard.

¶19

2.	The	appellants	challeng	e t	he	order	dated 21	.8.2007
passed	by	the learned	Si	ngle	Judge	in	Summons	for
Judgment	No.449	of 2005	in	Summ	ary	Suit	No.1273 of	2005.
There	was	no dispute	raised	by	the	app	ellants that	the
plaintiff	had	advanced	sum	of		Rs.4,22,	000/- to	the
appellants.		The	record	app	arently	dis	closes failure	of
repayment	and	further	the	perio	dical	conf	irmation of	the
balance	amo	unt due to	the	pl	aintiff	by	the def	endants.
Nothing	was	placed	before	the	lear	ned S	ingle Judge	or
even	before	us regarding	the	ac	tual	clearan	ce of all	the
dues	to	the respo	ndent-pla	intiff	by	the	defendants	or
even	any	justification	for	non		payment.	The	only

¶20

:2:

¶21

contention	sought to	be raised before the learned	Single
Judge	in relation	to the confirmation of the	balance
amount	was that th	e same was done by the appellants	at
the	instance of	his Advocate only to help	the
plaintiff-re	spondent on	account of some income	tax
purpose.	In	this regard, apart from the affidavit	of
the	Advocate on	behalf of the appellants, no	other
document	or any	other material in support of such	claim
has	ever been plac	ed on record. Once it is admit	ted by
the	appellants that	certain amount was advanced to	the
appellants	by the	respondent, accrual of	interest
thereon	and balanc	e amount was duly confirmed by	the
appellants	periodically	and within the period	of
limitation,	no fault	can be found in the impugned	order
allowing	the claim	of the respondent bank and	decreeing
the	suit. All	the contentions sought to be raised	on
behalf	of the	appellants have been duly considered	by
the	learned Single	Judge and there is no room	for
interferenc	e in the	impugned order. The appeal	is

¶22

therefore, liable to be summarily dismissed and

¶23

accordingly, the same is dismissed.

¶24

(R.S. MOHITE, J.)

¶25

(R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.)

Shah Hansraj Vajpar and 4 Ors. v. Ajay Navinchandra Gogri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shah Hansraj Vajpar and 4 Ors. v. Ajay Navinchandra Gogri

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

Mr. Jose Maria Albert Vales Alias Robert Vales Vs State (Then District and Sessions Judge)

Mrs. Sharad Govind Ghode Vs M/S. Sellwell Foods and Beverages Pvt. Ltd.

Shri. T. Rangnath Vs Union Bank of India through Manager and 2 Ors.

Madgavkar Salvage Represented by Partners Vs S K S Logistic Limited Represented by Deputy General Manager Captain v. S. Gopinath

Mrs. Antonieta Joanes Vs S T a T E through Public Prosecutor and Anr.

Shabir K. Bengre, Presently in Judicial Custody, Panaji Goa through His Sister Jamila Mulla Vs State through Panaji Police Station