Suit by M.C.G.M. against M/s. Hording Hawk for charges payable under contract for display of illuminated hoardings. Defendants failed to pay charges and furnish bank guarantees. Suit decreed.
Suit decreed in terms of prayer clause (a). Interest at 9% p.a. from date of decree till payment. Court fees refund and original documents returned.
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.
hvn
1/3
48-s-678.2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
SUIT NO. 678 OF 2008
M.C.G.M.
.. Plaintiff
Versus
M/s. Hording Hawk
.. Defendant
Ms. Sheela Tambe i/by Mr. S.H. Ujjainwala and Ors. for plaintiff
None for Defendants.
CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J. DATED : 22nd MARCH, 2013
P.C.
By an order dated 19th April, 2010 passed by the Prothonotary & Senior Master of this court, the suit is transferred under the caption of undefended suits in view of the defendants not filing written statement. The learned counsel for the plaintiff tenders affidavit in lieu of examination in chief and also compilation of documents. The same are taken on record. By letter dated 21st November, 2011 plaintiff accepted the tender of the defendants for displaying of illuminated hoardings at suit site subject to terms and conditions mentioned therein. The defendants committed default in making payment of the charges payable under the said contract to the plaintiffs by defendant. The defendants were liable to pay
hvn
2/3
48-s-678.2008
charges for the first year in advance and to submit bank guarantees for the payment of dues for the second year of the said contract. The defendants did not pay the charges for the first year in advance and requested the plaintiff to permit the defendants to pay the charges for the first year in five installments. Plaintiff accepted the said request made by the defendants on furnishing the bank guarantees in favour of the plaintiff. Though the defendant paid charges for the display of illuminated hoardings for the first year installments, however did not furnish the bank guarantees in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs addressed letters to the defendants to furnish bank guarantees. Defendant did not furnish the bank guarantees. Plaintiffs vide notice dated 11th November, 2012 revoked the permission granted to the plaintiff for display of illuminated hoardings on the suit site.
hvn
3/3
48-s-678.2008
have proved its claim against the defendants.
Suit is accordingly decreed in terms of prayer clause (a). It is made clear that the plaintiff would be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the principal amount from the date of decree till payment. The cost and refund of court fees as per rules. Office is directed to return the original documents within two weeks on plaintiff filing true copies of the original documents in this court.
[R.D. DHANUKA, J.]
1 issue framed by the court
Whether plaintiffs are entitled to decree of civil suit for recovery of unpaid charges for display of illuminated hoardings.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
R.D. DHANUKA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
