Dismissed

SBI Global Factors Ltd. (Formerly Known as M/S. Global Trade Finance Ltd.) v. K.K. Polycolor India Ltd. and 6 Ors.

Bombay HC1 Jul 2013NMS/2354/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Notice of motion by defendants to set aside a prior Receiver appointment order was rejected as they failed to establish merit. The plaintiff was consequently directed to serve final notice to appear, with proceedings to continue if defendants default.

What did the court decide?

Notice of motion rejected; final notice served; proceedings to continue on non-appearance.

SBI Global Factors Ltd. (Formerly Known as M/S… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

nms-2354.11.doc

¶2

ppn 1

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINAY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2354 OF 2011 ALONG WITH SUIT NO.1565 OF 2010

¶5

SBI Global Factors Ltd. .. Plaintiff Vs. M/s. K.K. Polycolor India Ltd. & Ors. .. Defendants

¶6

Ms. Luann Crasto i/by M/s. K. Ashar & Co. for the plaintiff. None for defendants.

¶7

CORAM : N.M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 1 JULY 2013

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

. This suit has been instituted for recovery of an amount of Rs.5,28,33,878.27 (Rupees Five Crores Twenty Eight Lakhs Thirty Three Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Eight and Twenty Seven Paise only) in respect of the Trade Finance Facility granted by the plaintiff to the first defendant.

¶10

In notion of motion no.1812 of 2010, this Court by an order dated 13 April 2011 held that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case and directed that the Court Receiver be appointed. At that time, none appeared on behalf of the defendants. Thereafter, on 7 September 2011, notice of motion no.1812 of 2010 came up for hearing. The Court after noting that the defendants were absent even when the ad-interim order was passed on 13 April 2011 made the notice of motion absolute. Thereafter, on 4 January 2013, none appeared on behalf of the defendants so also on 22 March 2013.

¶11

ppn 2

¶12

nms-2354.11.doc

¶13

The learned Counsel for the plaintiff seeks time to tender affidavit of evidence on record along with compilation of documents. Witness on behalf of the plaintiff is present in the Court. None appeared on behalf of defendants in the morning sessions when the matter was called out and it was kept back at 3.00 p.m. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff states that notice of the fact that the matter was kept back is duly served on the learned Counsel appearing for the defendants. None appears for the defendants.

¶14

Notice of motion no.2354 of 2011 is taken out by the defendants for various prayers. By this notice of motion, the defendants pray that the order dated 13 April 2011 be set aside and leave granted under clause 12 of the Letters Patent Act be revoked.

¶15

I have perused the affidavit-in-support of notice of motion. No case is made out to recall or set aside the order dated 13 April 2011. In any case, the order dated 13 April 2011 is confirmed by the order dated 7 September 2011. There is no merit in the notice of motion. Notice of motion is accordingly rejected.

¶16

Though the plaintiff has tendered affidavit of evidence and original documents and the witness is present, the Court could have proceeded to hear the matter itself, considering the fact that the defendants are represented through his advocate, to give last opportunity to the defendants, stand over to 8 July 2013.

¶17

It is made clear that if the defendants fail to appear through

¶18

nms-2354.11.doc

¶19

ppn 3

¶20

himself or through his advocate, the Court will proceed to pass such order as may be warranted in the facts of the case. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff will give one more notice to the learned Counsel for the defendants conveying the gist of the order passed today.

¶21

N.M. JAMDAR, J.

SBI Global Factors Ltd. (Formerly Known as M/S. Global Trade Finance Ltd.) v. K.K. Polycolor India Ltd. and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

SBI Global Factors Ltd. (Formerly Known as M/S. Global Trade Finance Ltd.) v. K.K. Polycolor India Ltd. and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bikaner Wooltex Private Limited Vs -----

Aryan Realtors Private Limited Vs ---

Atul Housing and Constructions Private Limited Vs ---

Dhanaji Waman Shinde Vs Bharat Forge Limited

Shri. Dhanaji Waman Shinde Vs Bharat Forge Limited, Mundhawa, Pune

Chandrasen H. Momaya Vs the Joint Charity Commissioner, Greater Mumbai Region and Ors.