Dismissed

Sarladevi D. Changiowala v. Taj Television (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Bombay HC27 Jan 2011NMS/78/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Plaintiff sought an order under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC directing the Defendants to disclose assets and restrain disposal of properties. The Single Judge dismissed the Notice of Motion, finding no evidence to support the Plaintiff's allegations of insolvency and disposal of business activities.

What did the court decide?

Notice of Motion seeking asset disclosure and restraint on disposal of properties was dismissed.

Sarladevi D. Changiowala Vs Taj Television… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

1 nms-78-10-s-3285-09

¶2

I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

jmi

¶5

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 78 OF 2010

¶6

¶7

SUIT NO. 3285 OF 2009.

¶8

Sarladevi D. Changiowala. ..Plaintiff.

¶9

vs.

¶10

M/s. Taj Television (India) Pvt. Ltd. ..Defendants.

¶11

Mr. Mehul Rathod, i/b. Ashok M. Saraogi, for Plaintiff. None for Defendants.

¶12

CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 27TH JANUARY 2011.

¶13

P.C.

¶14

By the present Suit, the Plaintiff seeks an order and direction against the Defendants to pay to the Plaintiff a sum of Rs. 5,85,422/- along with further interest as prayed.

¶15

According to the Plaintiff, she is in business of supplying gift articles in the name and style of M/s. Agarwal Gift Articles, and at the request of the Defendants, the Plaintiff has sold and supplied the gift articles to the Defendants. The necessary invoice and the delivery challans raised by the Plaintiff on the Defendants are annexed at Exhibits ‘A’ to ‘B-6’ to the Plaint. However, the Defendants have failed and neglected to make any payments to the Plaintiff. The Defendants are therefore bound and liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,85,422/- to the Plaintiff along with interest as more particularly set out in the particulars of claim at Exhibit ‘E’ to the Plaint.

¶16

According to the Plaintiff, she has learnt that the Defendants are highly in debts to various parties in the market and

¶17

2 nms-78-10-s-3285-09

¶18

there is every possibility of the Defendants being wound up and/or disposing of their entire business activities. It is submitted that in such circumstances, none of the creditors would be in a position to recover their amounts from the Defendants, even if a creditor succeeds in the litigation against the Defendants and the entire proceedings filed by the creditors would become infructuous.

¶19

In the Notice of Motion, the Plaintiff has sought the following relief :-

¶20

“That pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Suit, the defendants be directed to disclose on oath the details of the assets and liabilities against the company of the defendants and also the defendants be restrained from creating any third party rights and/or disposing of its properties till hearing and final disposal of the suit in any manner whatsoever.”

¶21

The Plaintiff had earlier filed Company Petition No. 85 of 2009 seeking winding up of the Defendant Company on the same cause of action. The Company Petition was dismissed by an order of this Court dated 9^th April 2009 on the ground that there exists bonafide disputes between the parties pertaining to the quality of the goods supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendants.

¶22

Though none appear for the Defendants, I have perused the written statement filed by the Defendants in the present Suit. The Defendants have in the written statement denied the allegations made by the Plaintiff and have also denied that they are highly indebted to various parties in the market. The Defendants have denied that there is a possibility of the Defendants Company being wound up and/or disposing of the entire business activities. The Defendants have submitted that they are a solvent company. The Defendants have denied that they are unable to pay their debt and have asserted that no amount is legitimately due to the Plaintiff.

¶23

3 nms-78-10-s-3285-09

¶24

This Court has noted that the Plaintiff has not given any particulars as regards the Defendants being in heavy debts to various parties in the market as alleged or that they are in the process of disposing of their entire business activities as alleged. The Plaintiff has not produced any evidence in support of any of her allegations against the Defendants. In view thereof, no case is made out by the Plaintiff for seeking reliefs under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The Notice of Motion is accordingly, dismissed.

¶25

[ S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. ]

Sarladevi D. Changiowala v. Taj Television (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarladevi D. Changiowala v. Taj Television (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akruti City Limited. Vs Aakruti Housing Development Company Private Limited, Gujarat.

Feroze Foods and Flavours Vs Maruti Mohite

Gangadhar S. Shetty Vs Hemant N. Gandhi and 2 Ors.

Nitin Taj Ahuja and Anr. Vs Avinash Jumani and Anr.

Hasmukhrai and Co. Vs Hasmukh and Co. (P.G.)

Bank of Baroda Vs Suresh Umid Solanki and 2 Ors.