Plaintiff seeks recovery on a bill of exchange. Defendants argue Defendant No.2 was not a partner. Court grants leave to defend without abandoning partner defense, noting it is triable.
Leave granted to Defendants No.2 and 5 to defend suit; written statement allowed.
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.
kvm
1
SJ184_10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 184 OF 2010 IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO. 1783 OF 2009
Manishkumar Ramesh Sancheti ..... Plaintiff VERSUS M/s.Pankaj Investments & Ors. ..... Defendants
Mr.S.K.Jain for the Plaintiff.
Mr.Anup N.Deshmukh with Mr.Nitin V.Gangal, i/b. Namita M.Mestry for Defendant No.2.
Mr. Raj Patel, i/b. K.R.Aiyar & Associates for Defendant No.5.
CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J.
DATE : 3 rd AUGUST, 2012.
P.C. :
The Plaintiff has filed this suit and seeks to recover Rs.5,90,000/- with interest at the rate of 15% per annum. The suit is based on bill of exchange dated 18th August 2004 signed by Defendant No.2 as a partner of Defendant NO.1.
5,00,000/-. It is not in dispute that the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- has been given as
kvm
2
SJ184_10
loan to the 1st Defendant by cheque. According to the Plaintiff various cheques towards Bill of Exchange have been issued by Defendant No.1 from time to time in favour of the Plaintiff in respect of the said loan transaction. Defendant No.1 also issued TDS Certificate in favour of the Plaintiff on payment of interest. According to the Plaintiff when the said Bill of Exchange was presented for payment on 2nd May, 2008 on the Second Defendant in capacity as a partner of the First Defendant, the same was dishonoured. The Plaintiff thereafter issued various notices calling upon the Defendant to pay, however no payment was made. By an Order dated 30th March, 2010 R.Y.Ganoo, J passed ex-parte decree against Defendant Nos.1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 in the sum of Rs.5,90,000/- with interest at the rate of 15% per annum as no Vakalatnama came to be filed by those Defendants. The Plaintiff has taken out this Summons for Judgment now against Defendant Nos. 2 and 5.
kvm
3
SJ184_10
kvm
4
SJ184_10
made by Defendant No.2 as a partner of Defendant No.1 would bind the other partners and third parties or not is a triable issue which is required to be adjudicated upon at the time of trial.
(a) Unconditional leave is granted to Defendant Nos. 2 and 5 to defend the suit,
(b) Written statement shall be filed within eight weeks from the date of this order.
(c) Suit is transferred to the list of commercial causes.
(d) Office is directed to place the matter thereafter on Board for framing issues.
(e) Summons for Judgment is disposed of accordingly.
(f) There shall be no order as to cost.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether Defendant No.2's representation as a partner of Defendant No.1 binds the firm given he was not a partner at the time.
If representation is fraudulent, whether other legal remedies exist.
Whether Defendant No.2's defense regarding non-partnership can be abandoned.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Romi K.Sidhwani vs. M/s.Pankaj Investments & Ors.Referred¶5
Romi K.Sidhwani vs. M/s.Pankaj Investments & Ors., Summons for Judgment No. 295 of 2008 in Summary Suit No.1391 of 2008
Manishkumar Ramesh Sancheti
M/s.Pankaj Investments & Ors.
R.D. DHANUKA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
