Dismissed

Padhmam Herbal Cate P Ltd. v. Empee Offset Pvt. Ltd.

Bombay HC1 Dec 2009APP/315/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An appeal against an order allowing the defendant to defend a suit on the ground of defective goods. The Court found no error in the Single Judge's decision as the rejection notice was issued only after the demand for payment, constituting a belated defense. The appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed and deposit was ordered to be made within two weeks.

Padhmam Herbal Cate P Ltd. Vs Empee Offset… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 315 OF 2009 IN SUMMONS FOR JUDGEMENT NO. 243 OF 2007 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 36 OF 2007

¶3

M/s.Padhmam Herbal Care (P) Ltd. .. Appellant Vs Empee Offset Private Limited. .. Respondent

¶4

Shri Rajesh Shah i/by Bipen Joshi for the Appellant. Ms Sunita Sonawane i/by M.R. Phal for the Respondent.

¶5

CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & A.M. KHANWILKAR, J DATED : 1ST DECEMBER, 2009

¶6

P.C.

¶7

Present Appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 11th June, 2009 by which the summons for judgment taken out by the Defendant in the suit was allowed. The Defendant was granted conditional leave to defend the suit subject to payment of Rs.10,25,836/- within four weeks from the date of the said order. This order has been assailed in the present appeal.

¶8

The learned Single Judgte, after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, has noted in paragraph 5 as

¶9

follows:-

¶10

¶11

“5. It may also be noted that the goods were supplied in December, 2003 and January, 2004. The letter about the alleged defects in the goods was written for the first time on 20th May 2004, that is long after the receipt of the goods and that too after the plaintiff demanded the payment. Furthermore, the letter did not mention any specific defect in the quality of goods. The affidavit in reply also does not mention any specific defect. In my view, the defence that the goods were defective is nothing but a moonshine defence for two reasons, viz. (i) rejection of goods on the ground of defects was not communicated within a reasonable time but was communicated only after demand of price, and (ii) the alleged defects are not specified either in the rejection letter or anywhere else.”

¶12

We are unable to find any error of jurisdiction much less jurisdiction or exercise of judicial discretion in the impugned order. There is nothing on record to show that right from January, 2004 till May, 2004, there was any letter written by the Defendant to the Plaintiff saying that the goods received were defective. Furthermore, letter dated 20th May, 2004 was written only after the Respondents in the present Appeal had pressed for bills in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement which require 60 days’ credit. It needs to be proved by the Defendants that they had informed the Respondents in the present appeal of the defective goods and had always been willing to return the said

¶13

goods.

¶14

¶15

In the circumstances, we see no reason to interfere in the impugned order. The Appeal accordingly stands dismissed. Deposit be made within two weeks from today.

¶16

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶17

A.M.KHANWILKAR, J

Padhmam Herbal Cate P Ltd. v. Empee Offset Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padhmam Herbal Cate P Ltd. v. Empee Offset Pvt. 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

Sunita Vijaykumar Gupta Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sunita Vijaykumar Gupta Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sarika Machindra Nalwade @ Sarika Ambadas Pawar Vs the Chairman, Vidyarthi Htwardhak Mandal and Ors.

Sheikh Anwar Tailor Vs Executive Engineer and 7 Ors.

Mahesh Kantilal Zaveri Vs Mukesh Kantilal Zaveri

Press Group of Maharashtra Vs Maharashtra Public Service Commission and Ors.