Dismissed

M/S. Dawson Cargo Services Pvt. Ltd. v. E.M.U. Lines Pvt. Ltd. Co.

Bombay HC9 Mar 2012APP/132/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against an order granting leave to defend in a summary suit for services rendered. The court held the trial judge correctly found territorial jurisdiction despite services being rendered outside Bombay, as the defendant carried on business and acknowledged liability in Bombay. Appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Leave to defend granted by lower court upheld; appeal dismissed; time for deposit extended to March 30, 2012.

M/S. Dawson Cargo Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs E.M.U. Lines… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2012)

-: 1 :-

Appeal - 132/12

srp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

APPEAL NO. 132 OF 2012

¶7

IN SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. NO. 436 OF 2009 IN

¶8

SUMMARY SUIT NO. 1545 OF 2009

¶9

M/s. Dawson Cargo Services Pvt. Limited. ..Appellants. Versus E.M.U. Lines Pvt. Limited Company. ..Respondents.

¶10

Mr. K. J. Kukreja with Mr. Mahesh B. Bhagat. Mr. M.C.Shah with J.B.singh for respondents.

¶11

Coram : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & RANJIT MORE, J. Date : March 9, 2012 .

¶12

P. C. :

¶13

This appeal is directed against the order dated 19^th

¶14

December 2011 of the learned trial Judge of this Court granting appellant

¶15

leave to defend in Summary Suit No. 1545 of 2009 subject to the condition of depositing principal amount claimed in the suit within 12 weeks.

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellant – defendant no.1

¶17

submitted that the appellant has challenged the order mainly on the

¶18

-: 2 :-

¶19

Appeal - 132/12

¶20

ground that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit because the plaintiffs have rendered services outside Bombay, in Raigad District.

¶21

Learned trial Judge has dealt with the above contention exhaustively and rejected the same after recording that the defendants were carrying on business from Bombay, the agreement was arrived at Bombay, then, from where the goods were shipped and to which destination is not material. The defendants even made part payment and acknowledged their liability to make payment under the subject contract at Bombay. The cheque drawn on the ICICI Bank Ltd, Bombay was handed over in Bombay. In our view, therefore, the learned trial has not committed any error in holding that this Court has territorial jurisdiction.

¶22

Moreover, the learned trial Judge has also noted that on merits, the defendant had acknowledged that the services were rendered by the plaintiff and that the amount was due and payable but on account of their financial conditions, they could not make payment. In the above factual background, we see no infirmity in the impugned order. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

¶23

-: 3 :-

¶24

Appeal - 132/12

¶25

The time to deposit the amount as per the directions of

¶26

learned Single Judge is extended till 30^th March 2012.

¶27

[CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶28

[RANJIT MORE, J.]

-: 4 :-

Appeal - 132/12

srp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶33

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶34

NOTICE OF MOTION (ld.) NO. 792 OF 2012 IN APPEAL NO. 132 OF 2012 IN

¶35

SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. NO. 436 OF 2009 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 1545 OF 2009

¶36

M/s. Dawson Cargo Services Pvt. Limited. ..Appellants. Versus E.M.U. Lines Pvt. Limited Company. ..Respondents.

¶37

Mr. K. J. Kukreja with Mr. Mahesh B. Bhagat. Mr. M.C.Shah with J.B.Singh for respondents.

¶38

Coram : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & RANJIT MORE, J. Date : March 9, 2012 .

¶39

P. C. :

¶40

In view of the dismissal of Appeal, this notice of motion

¶41

does not survive and it is accordingly disposed of.

¶42

[CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶43

[RANJIT MORE, J.]

M/S. Dawson Cargo Services Pvt. Ltd. v. E.M.U. Lines Pvt. Ltd. Co.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Dawson Cargo Services Pvt. Ltd. v. E.M.U. Lines Pvt. Ltd. Co.

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

Nilesh Sonal and Anr. Vs Oil and Natural Gas Corporation and 2 Ors.

Mukkesh Chandranath Sharma Vs Government of India through Central Board of Film Certification (Censor Board) and 2 Ors.

M.V. Nordlake and Anr. Vs Union of India

Rajshekar Palaniswami Vs M/S Chopda Finance Corporation and Anr.

Yashwantrao Shamrao Sonawane Vs State of Maharashtra

Iqbal Ahmed Hussain Vs Abdul Mannanchotekhan