Dismissed

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. v. Ashok Seth and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Feb 2008CHS/590/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a chamber summons and notice of motion seeking rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and striking out names under Order I Rule 10 CPC. The Court held that limitation and liability issues regarding contract promises required evidence and were not fit for summary disposal.

What did the court decide?

Notice of motion and chamber summons dismissed. Each Defendant 1, 2, and 3 to pay Rs. 2,000 each as costs.

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Vs Ashok Seth… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION.

¶4

CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.590 OF 2007

¶5

WITH

¶6

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1443 OF 2007

¶7

IN

¶8

SUIT NO.1726 OF 2004

¶9

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam

¶10

Limited

¶11

: Plaintiffs

¶12

versus

¶13

Shri Ashok Seth & ors.

¶14

: Defendants.

¶15

Mr.Parag Kale for Defendant Nos. 2 to 4.

¶16

CORAM : S.J.VAZIFDAR, J.

¶17

DATED : 05th February 2008.

¶18

P.C.

¶19

1.The chamber summons has been taken out
only on behalf of Defendant No.1 and the notice
of motion, which is placed on board, has been
taken out on behalf of Defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4.

¶20

¶21

2.In the chamber summons, Defendant No.1
has sought an order for rejecting the plaint
against the defendant under the provisions of
Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
This is on the basis that the claim is barred by
limitation.

¶22

3.In the notice of motion, Defendant Nos.2,
3 and 4 have sought a similar relief in prayer
clause (a). In prayer clause (b), Defendant
Nos.2, 3 and 4 have sought an order that their
names be struck out under the provisions of Order
I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code.

¶23

4.One of the contentions raised on behalf
of defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4 is also on the point
of limitation. It is true that the bills pertain
to the year 1996. However, it cannot be said at
this stage that the suit is barred by limitation.
For instance, by a letter dated 31.7.2000,
addressed to the plaintiffs, Defendant No.4
stated that the subscriber-defendant was willing
to pay a sum of Rs.4,200/- to be deducted from
his salary per month for the purpose of paying
the said bills. The question, as to whether this

¶24

¶25

constitutes a promise under Section 25 of the
Contract Act or not would require to be decided
only after the evidence is led.

¶26

5.Nor it can be stated with any degree of
certainty at this stage that Defendant No.4 would
not be liable to pay. It would have to be seen
as to whether Defendant No.4 while seeking
extension on behalf of other the defendants by a
letter dated 31.7.2000 complied with their
representations for deducting the amount from the
salary of the subscriber and paying the same over
to the plaintiff.

¶27

6.Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3, who resided in
the said premises, appear to be defaulters not
only in respect of the suit claim but also in
respect of other telephone facilities.
Apparently, a hunting facility was also granted.
In view thereof, it would require to be examined,
whether the subscribers, who are a part of a
hunting facility, are responsible for payment of
the telephone connections which are a part of the
said facility.

¶28

7.This is not a fit case for exercising

¶29

¶30

powers under Order 10 and 11 of the Civil
Procedure Code. In the circumstances, the notice
of motion and the chamber summons are dismissed.

¶31

8.Each of the Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3
shall pay costs of this notice of motion fixed at
Rs.2,000/- each within eight weeks from today.
Payment of costs is a condition precedent to the
filing of the written statement, if any.

¶32

**********

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. v. Ashok Seth and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. v. Ashok Seth and Ors.

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

M/S. Lifestyle Eyewear Vs Bright Vision and Anr.

Hiralal Sankatha Thakur and Ors. Vs Kamaladevi W/O Manekchand Bhacha and Ors.

the naitional small industries corporation limited Vs m/s kamal traders and Ors. and kamala vasudeo badlani

M/S. Pratik Gems Vs M/S. Nidhi Diamonds Exports Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

m/s pratik gems Vs nidhi diamonds exports Pvt. Ltd.

Tata Motors Vs M/S Samarth Developer and Constructors Co. and Anr.