Suit No. 2316 of 1984. Judgment on file where defendants were ex parte. Plaintiffs produced affidavit evidence from an ex-serviceman, Deepak P. Amre, which was accepted due to lack of cross-examination and absence of defendants. Suit decreed.
Suit decreed as prayed.
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. 2316 OF 1984
Steel Authority of India Ltd.
... Plaintiffs.
V/s.
Best Trunk Industries.
... Defendants.
Mr. Sandeep Sreekumar i/b. Mulla & Mulla for the Plaintiffs. None for the Defendants. Mr. D.P. Amre, Sr. Office Superintendent (vigilance) present in person.
CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.
24TH FEBRUARY 2009.
P.C. :
This matter is placed for ex-parte decree at the
| instance | of | t | he | Plaintiff. | The | P | laintiff’s | Advocate | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| states | that | Mr. | Deepak | P. |
Amre, who |
is |
working | as Senior |
|
| Office | Super | inte | ndent | (Vigilance) | with | the | Plaintiffs | is | |
| the | witness | wh |
om | the | Plaintiffs | desire | to | examine | as their |
| only | w | itness. | It | is stated |
by the |
Plain | tiffs that |
at the |
|
| relevant | time, | Mr. | Amre | was | assisting | Mr. |
V. |
Satyanarayan, Junior Manager (Finance), at Mumbai. The
relevant period 1981 to 1985. Mr. Amre is personally
aware of the suit transaction .
19th January 2009, is tendered by the Plaintiffs’
Advocate.
:2:
| signature | below |
para | 14 | of the |
affida | vit in evidence. |
The |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| witness | states | that | he has |
gone | through the |
affidavit. | |
| The | statements | therein | are tru |
e and |
correct. He |
states |
|
| that | the Pl |
aintiffs | are |
relying |
upon | 9 documents |
each one |
| of | which has |
been | referred | to | in the aff |
idavit in |
evidence. He states that the contents of these documents
are true and correct.
on record and marked ‘X’.
9 documents. The compilation is also taken on record and
marked X-1 collectively.
any Written Statement. They have not remained present
to cross examine the Plaintiffs’ witness either.
| and | allegations in |
the |
plaint. | He | states that |
he |
was |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| working | in the |
Bombay | Office | at the |
relevant | time. | The |
| transaction | was con |
cluded | in | his | presence. | H | e has |
| produced | the office |
copy of |
the | invoice | and debt |
note. |
He |
| has | confirmed the |
receipt |
of | a lett |
er dated |
3rd | September |
| 1982 | from the |
Defendant. | He also |
confirms | the | statements |
:3:
| made | in | the | reply | of | the | Plainti | ffs | dated | 2nd | November |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1982 | and | the | signatur | e | below | this | letter/reply. | He | also | |
| confirms | the | contents | and | the | sig | nature of |
the | letter | ||
| dated | 18th | June | 1983. | He | has | thus | confirmed | the |
statements in the plaint and the contents of the
documents.
More so, there is no cross examination of the witness in
so far as the version of the Plaintiffs.
Advocates costs to be computed as per Rules.
(S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
