Allowed

M/S. Gini and Jony Ltd. v. Lokesh Sharma

Bombay HC19 Jun 2012SJ/487/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment concerns a suit for recovery of a security deposit from a leave and licence agreement. The defendant was consistently absent, and the plaintiff successfully established entitlement to the refund. The court held the defense in the defendant's limited letter lacked substance and decreed the suit as prayed.

What did the court decide?

Summons for Judgment made absolute; Suit decreed in favour of Plaintiff; Refund of court fees as per rules.

M/S. Gini and Jony Ltd. Vs Lokesh Sharma — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2012)

kvm

SJ487_09

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 487 OF 2009 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 947 OF 2007

¶5

M/s.Gini and Jony Ltd.

¶6

..... Plaintiff

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Mr.Lokesh Sharma ..... Defendant

¶9

Mr.A.J.Rizvi for the Plaintiff.

¶10

None for the Defendant.

¶11

CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J.

¶12

DATE : 19th JUNE, 2012.

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

The Plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,49,775/- and interest at the rate of 24% per annum on Rs.1,53,250/- from the date of filing of this suit till realisation and for cost of the suit. The suit is filed for refund of security deposit paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant under an Agreement dated 25^th June, 2002 and 1^st June, 2003 by which Defendant had given two premises to the Plaintiff on leave and licence, initially for a period of 11 months which came to be extended from time to time. It is the case of the Plaintiff that on 31^st October, 2004, the Plaintiff vacated the said two flats after informing the Defendant well in advance in the month of November 2004. The Defendant demanded the refund of security deposit. Since the Defendant did not refund the

kvm

SJ487_09

security deposit, the Plaintiff issued a demand notice on 3^rd April, 2006 through their advocate. In response to the said letter dated 3^rd April, 2006, the Defendant offered to pay only a sum of Rs.48,930/- after deducing and/or adjusting various amounts alleged to be due and payable by the Plaintiff to the Defendant from the security deposit amount. The Plaintiff by their advocate letter dated 30^th December, 2006 denied the allegations made by the Defendant in the reply dated 20^th April, 2006 and filed a suit for recovery of the security deposit payable under the said two agreements of Leave and Licence.

¶19

At one stage, the Defendant had appeared through their advocate Mr.Vivek Sharma. The matter has been adjourned from time to time as the Defendant as well as their advocate was absent. On 28^th November, 2011 it appears that the said Mr.Vivek Sharma Advocate took discharge. Mr.Sunil Yadav Advocate appeared and sought time till 12^th December, 2011. The matter then appeared on 12^th December, 2011. The Defendant as well as his advocate was absent.

¶20

My Brother S.C.Dharmadhikari, J directed the office to show the name of Mr.Sunil Yadav who had appeared on earlier occasion without any Vakalatnama and was pleased to adjourned the matter to 14^th December, 2011. The matter thereafter appeared on 19^th December, 2011. None appeared for the Defendant. Defendant was also absent. The matter was adjourned to 4^th January, 2012. Even on 4^th January, 2012 Defendant as well as his advocate was absent.

kvm

SJ487_09

The matter has appeared today. The Defendant as well as his advocate is absent even today. No affidavit in reply though stated to have been filed is traceable on record.

¶25

I have gone through the plaint as well as the annextures with the assistance of the Learned Advocate for the Plaintiff. Suit is for refund of the security deposit given by the Plaintiff under the said two agreement of Leave and Licence dated 25^th June, 2002 and 1^st June 2003 respectively. The Plaintiff have already vacated the flats given on Leave and Licence as far back in the year 2004 and has become entitle to the refund of security deposit. In my opinion, there is no substance in the allegations made by the Defendant in his letter dated 20^th April, 2006. Even if the said letter is considered as reply, in my opinion, the Defendant at no point of time raised any such issue earlier. The defence raised in the said letter is frivolous and moon shine. The Plaintiffs are, therefore, entitle to relief claimed in the said Summons for Judgment.

¶26

I, therefore, pass the following order :-

¶27

a) Summons for Judgment is made absolute. b) Suit is decreed as prayed. c) Refund of court fees as per rules.

¶28

[R.D. DHANUKA, J.]

M/S. Gini and Jony Ltd. v. Lokesh Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Gini and Jony Ltd. v. Lokesh Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chetana Book Depot Vs Dhaanush Educationals and v. Bhakhavatchallam

Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Rosehall Pharmaceuticals and 2 Ors.

Ranjana Inesh Humane @ Ranjana N. Jagdale Vs Sushila Narayan Jagdle and 3 Ors.

Reliance Capital Limited Vs Infra Lease Finance Private Limited and Ors.

Geomatrix Retail Pvt. Ltd. Vs Evinix Industries Ltd.

Dr K.D. Mehru Vs Cosmos Brands Distributors Pvt. Ltd.