Disposed

Daman Metalic Oxides and Rajendra Prasad Bansal v. Sumukha Electroplaters and B. Mohan Kumar

Bombay HC5 Aug 2011SJ/162/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a suit for recovery, the court set aside the defendant's unproven plea of defective goods. It granted leave to defend conditional on the defendant depositing Rs. 3,50,000 with the court within 28 days, or else allowing liberty to the plaintiffs for further orders. The suit was slated for transfer to Commercial Causes upon deposit.

What did the court decide?

Leave to defend granted conditional upon defendant depositing Rs. 3,50,000 with the court by 28.10.2011.

Daman Metalic Oxides and Rajendra Prasad… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2011)

sj162-11

vai

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

¶5

SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.162 OF 2011 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.540 OF 2011

¶6

M/s.Daman Metalic Oxides & Anr. ....Plaintiffs V/s.

¶7

M/s.Sumukha Electroplaters & Anr.

¶8

....Defendants

¶9

Mr.P.P. Parkar for the Plaintiffs.

¶10

Mr.S.R. Agarkar for the Defendants.

¶11

CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 5TH AUGUST, 2011.

¶12

P.C. :-

¶13

The suit is filed to recover the amounts in respect of the goods sold and delivered by the plaintiffs to the defendants on the terms and conditions contained in the invoices. The plaintiffs by their letters dated 2.10.2009, 9.11.2009 and 31.12.2009 demanded payment.

¶14

There was no reply to the first two notices. By a letter dated 18.1.2010, the defendants contended that the goods supplied were defective and had therefore returned the same. It is also argued before me that the defendants had adjusted the amounts due against the

¶15

defective supplies earlier made by the plaintiffs.

¶16

sj162-11

¶17

¶18

There is nothing on record that supports the defendants’ contention. When the gods were supplied, there was no protest.

¶19

In the circumstances, the defence does not appear to be

¶20

bona-fide,

¶21

The summons for judgment is therefore disposed of by the following order :-

¶22

i). Leave to defend granted to the defendants conditional upon the defendants depositing in this Court a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- on or before 28.10.2011.

¶23

ii). In the event the defendants deposit the aforesaid amount, the suit to stand transferred to the list of Commercial Causes. The defendants to file their written statement within thirty days. Discovery and inspection within four weeks thereafter.

¶24

iii). On the said deposit being made, the Prothonotary and Senior Master to invest the same in any nationalized bank initially for a period of one year and thereafter for like periods of one year each.

¶25

iv). In the event the defendants fail to deposit the aforesaid amount, liberty to the plaintiffs to apply for further orders.

¶26

v). The summons for judgment stands disposed of accordingly.

Daman Metalic Oxides and Rajendra Prasad Bansal v. Sumukha Electroplaters and B. Mohan Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daman Metalic Oxides and Rajendra Prasad Bansal v. Sumukha Electroplaters and B. Mohan Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akruti City Limited. Vs Aakruti Estates Private Limited, Gujarat.

Franco-Idian Pharmaceuticals Pvt.Ltd.and Anr. Vs M/S East West Pharma and Anr.

Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs Liver Foods (India) Pvt. Ltd.and Anr.

Reckitt and Colman of India Ltd. Vs Balsara Hygiene Products Ltd.

Kashiram M. Kanojiya Vs Ravishankar Gangubai Charitable Trust and 6 Ors.

Shaha Finlease Pvt. Ltd. Vs Honkkong and Shanghai Baning Corporation Ltd.