The court decreed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs.66,265/- plus interim interest, noting the defendant's absence and lack of denial regarding the telephone charges claim.
Suit decreed for recovery of Rs.66,265/- with 9% interest from date of filing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
SUIT NO. 145 OF 2001
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. ...Plaintiff.
Vs.
Bhadra Madhavji Devji & Anr.
...Defendants.
Ms. Jyoti R. Thakkar for the Plaintiff. None for the Defendants.
CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 26th AUGUST, 2009.
ORAL JUDGMENT:-
1 The suit is for recovery of Rs.66,265/- (Rupees sixty six thousand two hundred sixty five only). The claim arises in respect of the bill pertaining to telephone charges, in respect of the telephone connection granted to the Defendant. Though demanded was never paid. None appeared for the Defendants, though served. The Plaintiffs have filed an affidavit of service. Affidavit of claim, dated 24th September, 2008 is also filed on record along with the documents.
2 In the circumstances, as the case is made out and as there is no denial or dispute to the averments made, the suit is decreed in terms of
2
prayer clauses (a) and (b). However, the rate of interest is restricted to 9% from the date of filing of the suit till the realization.
(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit for recovery of telephone charges should be decreed in absence of defendant.
Whether interest rate on decretal amount should be modified.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Anoop V. Mota
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
