Disposed

Jethanand Visshindas Nagarani, the Sole Proprietor of M/S. Hindustan Carbon Brush Manufacturing Co. v. the Veerseva Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Bombay HC24 Jun 2008WP/1416/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a Cooperative Court award against a borrower and sureties. Upon mutual agreement, the Court substituted the award with a settlement involving monthly instalments via post-dated cheques. The Court preserved the right to enforce the original award if the first instalment is dishonoured.

What did the court decide?

Award substituted to allow payment of Rs. 3,50,000/- via instalments in 16 weeks; original award remains enforceable if first instalment is not paid.

Jethanand Visshindas Nagarani, the Sole… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

-1-

¶2

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

¶3

 Writ Petition No.1416 of 2008

¶4

 Jethanand Visshindas Nagarani ..Petitioner

¶5

vs.

¶6

 The Veershiva Urban Coop.Bank Ltd. ..Respondent

¶7

 Mr.Ashwin Kamath i/b M/s V.Deshpande and Co. for
 petitioner.

¶8

 Mr.N.N.Bhadrashete for respondent no.1.

¶9

CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARIJ.

¶10

24th June 2008

¶11

P.C.

¶12

 1. The petition is directed against the Award of the

¶13

 Cooperative Court as confirmed by the lower Appellate

¶14

 Court. The Award directs the petitioner and sureties to

¶15

 pay to the respondent Bank a sum of Rs.3,66,302/- within

¶16

 two months from the date of Award i.e. 14th December,
 2007 and to pay interest at the rate of 15% on the amount
 from 1st October, 1995 till realisation. There are
 directions given to give credit of the L.I.C. policy
 proceeds as well.

¶17

 2. After this matter was argued for some time, both sides
 agree that following order would meet the ends of justice.

¶18

 3. Both sides agree that award of the Cooperative Court

¶19

-2-

¶20

 as confirmed by the lower Appellate Court should be
 substituted as under;

¶21

 i) The petitioner borrower and opponent nos. 2 and
 3 namely, sureties to pay jointly a sum of
 Rs.3,50,000/- which shall be accepted in full and
 final settlement by the respondent Bank provided it
 is paid within a period of 16 weeks (four months)
 from today in equal monthly instalments.

¶22

 ii) Both sides agree that the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
 deposited in this Court shall be allowed to be
 withdrawn by the respondent Bank and withdrawal
 would be construed as adjustment towards the claim
 of Rs.3,50,000/- as awarded.

¶23

 iii) The balance sum of Rs.2,50,000/- shall be paid
 in instalments of Rs.60,000/- each and last
 instalment would be of Rs.70,000/- The instalments
 would be paid so as to complete the balance amount
 of Rs.2,50,000/-

¶24

 iv) It is agreed by both sides that in default of
 payment of the first instalment of Rs.60,000/- the
 entire Award of the Cooperative Court shall be

¶25

-3-

¶26

 enforceable and executable and then the petitioner
 as well as the sureties would have to abide by the
 same. In other words the default of payment of a
 sum of Rs.60,000/- would be construed as benefit of
 the order passed by this Court by consent would be
 forfeited and then the award of the Cooperative
 Court would become enforceable and executable
 against both borrower and sureties.

¶27

 v) The parties have agreed that the instalments
 would b e paid by handing over post dated cheques
 for the above sums. Needless to state that the
 consequence of dishonour of the cheques would also
 follow in law and the petitioner so also the
 sureties will have to abide by the outcome of those
 proceedings.

¶28

 vi) If the amounts are paid as agreed before this
 Court, then, the Bank shall accept them in full and
 final settlement of all claims under all heads of
 account and thereafter nothing will be due and
 payable by the petitioner-borrower and sureties.
 In that event the award of the Cooperative Court
 shall stand fully satisfied and marked as such.

¶29

-4-

¶30

 vii) Needless to state that the Bank would also

¶31

 issue "No Due Certificate" in favour of the

¶32

 petitioner and sureties.

¶33

 4. Writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms
 with the Award of the Cooperative Court being substituted
 as above. This order is passed in presence of the
 petitioner so also the representative of the respondent
 Bank.

¶34

(S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)

Jethanand Visshindas Nagarani, the Sole Proprietor of M/S. Hindustan Carbon Brush Manufacturing Co. v. the Veerseva Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jethanand Visshindas Nagarani, the Sole Proprietor of M/S. Hindustan Carbon Brush Manufacturing Co. v. the Veerseva Urban Co-Operative Bank 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

Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay Vs General Secretary Best Workers Union

Sudhakar Angar Shetty Vs Cambata Aviation Ltd.

Madhukar Mangesh Pal Vs the General Manager, the Best Undertaking

Haryana Financial Corporation Vs the O. L. , H. C., Bombay of Suri Papers and Chemicals Pvt.Ltd.

Deubai Parshuram Patil and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Crystal Lace (India) Ltd. Vs the Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and Ors.