Allowed

Shri Milind Shripad Chandurkar v. Shri Kalim Ahamad M. Khan

Bombay HC6 Jul 2012SJ/348/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this summary suit for recovery of Rs. 7,00,000/-, the court held that since the defendant issued a dishonoured cheque and failed to file a reply despite opportunities, the plaint averments remained uncontroverted. The Summons for Judgment was made absolute and the suit allowed.

What did the court decide?

The Summons for Judgment is made absolute and the suit is decreed with refund of court fees.

Shri Milind Shripad Chandurkar Vs Shri Kalim… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

S.J. No.348 of 2010

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 348 OF 2010 IN

¶6

SUMMARY SUIT NO. 1414 OF 2008

¶7

Shri. Milind Shripad Chandurkar

¶8

… Plaintiff

¶9

Versus

¶10

Mr. Kalim Ahamad M. Khan

¶11

… Defendant

¶12

Mr. J. Shekar along wth Mr. Abhishek A. Patil i/by M/s. J. Shekhar & Co. for the plaintiff.

¶13

Ms. Shobha Salunke i/by M/s. Kaikani Phadke & Associates for Defendant.

¶14

CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA,J. DATED : JULY 06, 2012

¶15

P.C.

¶16

The plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of Rs.7,00,000/- from the defendant together with interest.

¶17

The Plaintiff is a proprietary concern and is carrying on business of supply of diesel, petrol and lubricants oil. On 3^rd January, 2005 an account was opened with the plaintiff by the defendant in the name of Vikas Travels. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff used to supply diesel, petrol and lubricants oil to the defendant and a running account was maintained. It is the

¶18

case of the plaintiff that for discharging the liability towards the plaintiff, the

¶19

2 S.J. No.348 of 2010

¶20

defendant issued a cheque on 28^th April, 2005 in the name of proprietary firm Vijaya Automobiles in the sum of Rs. 7,00,000/-. The plaintiff deposited the said cheque with their bankers on 12^th September, 2005 and the same was returned with remarks “Funds Insufficient”.

¶21

Plaintiff thereafter issued legal notice dated 11^th October, 2005 to the defendant. However, the same was returned with remarks “unclaimed”. The Plaintiff has also filed criminal complaint against the defendant under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the revision application had been filed by the defendant arising out of the order of conviction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Uran and the said conviction order has been set aside. Since no amount was paid by the defendant, the plaintiff has filed this suit.

¶22

The learned counsel for the defendant seeks time to file affidavit in reply. From the perusal of the Roznama, it is clear that various opportunities were given to the defendant to file reply. On 13^th January, 2012, Anoop V. Mohta,J., on the request of the learned counsel for the defendant adjourned the matter to 20^th January 2012 as a last chance. The learned counsel for the defendant made a statement that draft reply was ready but awaiting instructions from the party. The matter thereafter appeared on board on 22^nd June, 2012. None appeared for the defendant. I am not inclined to grant adjournment to the learned counsel for the defendant for filing reply at this belated stage.

¶23

3 S.J. No.348 of 2010

¶24

I have gone through the plaint and also annexures with the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs. In my opinion, since the cheque issued by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff is dishonoured, the plaintiff is entitled to maintain the suit as summary suit. Since no reply has been filed by the defendant though opportunity is given from time to time, the averments made in the plaint remained uncontroverted. In my opinion, the plaintiff is therefore, entitled to reliefs as claimed in the Summons for Judgment. The Summons for Judgment is made absolute. The suit is decreed. Refund of court fees as per rules.

¶25

(R.D. DHANUKA,J.)

¶26

Nilegaonkar

Shri Milind Shripad Chandurkar v. Shri Kalim Ahamad M. Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Milind Shripad Chandurkar v. Shri Kalim Ahamad M. Khan

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

Coastal Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs Om Textile Pvt. Ltd.

A.V. Communications Vs Concept Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

M/S. Embee Road Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Keshwani Synthetic Ltd.

Machinfabrik Vs Biovet Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Machinfabrik Vs Biovet Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Shri Milind Shripad Chandurkar Vs Shri Naimulla Maqsoodali Khan