Allowed

Sns Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. Indage Vintners Ltd.

Bombay HC6 Sept 2013SJ/113/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a summary suit, the High Court at Bombay served summons for judgment after the defendant failed to appear. The plaintiff proved service via affidavit. Upon reviewing the affidavit in reply and related correspondence, the court found all defenses frivolous and dismissed them, decreeing the plaintiff's claim for the principal amount along with 12% p.a. interest.

What did the court decide?

Summons for judgment made absolute in terms of the plaintiff's prayer; suit decreed for the principal amount plus 12% p.a. interest from the filing date.

Sns Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs Indage Vintners Ltd. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2013)

.. 1 ..

34-SJ-113.11.sxw

hvn

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY . ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

S UMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 113 OF 2011 IN

¶6

SUMMARY SUIT NO. 2091 OF 2010

¶7

M/s. SNS Overseas Pvt. Ltd.

¶8

… Plaintiffs

¶9

Versus

¶10

M/s. Indage Vintners Ltd. … Defendants

¶11

Mr. Cyrus Bharucha and Ms. Namrata Jayakar i/by Jayakars for the plaintiff.

¶12

None for defendants.

¶13

CORAM : R.D.DHANUKA J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 06, 2013.

¶14

P.C.

¶15

Mr. Bharucha, the learned counsel for the plaintiff tenders affidavit of service affirmed on 5^th September, 2013 which indicates that the Clerk of the Advocates for the plaintiff personally visited the defendants office to deliver letter dated 4^th September, 2013 when Mr. Rajesh, employee of the defendant was present. It is stated that the said Mr. Rajesh refused to accept service of the said letter. Affidavit is taken on record. None appears for the defendant.

¶16

Matter was adjourned to 26^th July, 2013. It was made clear that the advocates for the defendant was informed about the next date of hearing

¶17

.. 2 .. 34-SJ-113.11.sxw

¶18

and that no further adjournment would be granted. None appears for the defendants today when the matter is called out.

¶19

By this summons for judgment, plaintiff seeks that the judgment be entered in favour of the plaintiff in the suit against defendant in the sum of Rs.11,60,702/- as set out in the plaint and for interest and cost.

¶20

The suit is based on various contracts entered into between the parties, purchase orders and invoices raised by the plaintiffs on the defendants.

¶21

Mr. Bharucha, the learned counsel for the plaintiff invited my attention to various invoices annexed to the plaint and also delivery challans to demonstrate that pursuant to the orders placed by the defendant upon the plaintiff, Plaintiff had sold and delivered wire bottle corks, glass bottles, enzamine for manufacture of wine and wire on the corks. Two cheques were issued by the defendants through one of the supplier of the defendants in the sum of Rs.20 lacs each but were dishonoured on presentation by the plaintiffs. My attention is also invited to the letter dated 7^th June, 2010 addressed by the defendants which records that the sample cork from the lot supplied by the plaintiff against bill dated 29^th March, 2010 had been tested and were found acceptable and the said bill had been forwarded to the Accounts Department and confirmation of its acceptance would be given by the Accounts Department after finalization and auditing of the quarterly accounts. The learned counsel also invited my attention to the letter dated 31^st March, 2010 to demonstrate that the defendants have

¶22

.. 3 .. 34-SJ-113.11.sxw

¶23

confirmed at least balance of Rs.52,19,118/- as on 31^st March, 2010. The learned counsel submits that all the invoices which are received by the defendants, due date for making payment was provided with provision for interest. In accordance with the terms and conditions of the said invoices, defendants were liable to pay interest at the rate of 24% in case of delayed payments.

¶24

Since none appears for the plaintiff, I have perused the entire affidavit with annexures with the assistance of the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

¶25

On perusal of the affidavit in reply, it is revealed that the financial condition of the defendant is in bad shape. Several winding up proceedings are filed against the defendants. Defendants have also approached Property Debts Restructuring Cell for restructuring the debts.

¶26

On perusal of the affidavit in reply, it appears that the defendants have vaguely disputed the delivery of the invoices and also lorry receipts. On perusal of the lorry receipts annexed to the affidavit in rejoinder filed by the plaintiff, it is clear that plaintiffs have delivered various items pursuant to purchase orders placed by the defendants from time to time. On perusal of the correspondence, it is clear that the defendants have also admitted substantial part of claims made by the plaintiff. In my view, vague denial of the receipt of the invoices and or lorry receipts in the affidavit in reply is totally frivolous and moonshine. Correspondence on record also indicates that the sample corks supplied by the plaintiff against the bill dated 29^th

¶27

34-SJ-113.11.sxw

¶28

.. 4 ..

¶29

March, 2010 had been tested and found acceptable.

¶30

In my view each and every defence raised in the affidavit in reply is totally frivolous, moonshine and reflects position contrary to the documents on record and cannot be accepted. In my view, there is no defence to the suit filed by the plaintiff. The claim made by the plaintiff thus deserves to be accepted. Summons for judgment is accordingly made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). It is made clear that the plaintiffs would be entitled to get further interest from the date of filing of the suit on the principal amount @ 12% p.a. till realization. Refund of court fees as per rules. Suit is decreed in aforesaid terms.

¶31

(R.D.DHANUKA, J.)

Sns Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. Indage Vintners Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sns Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. Indage Vintners Ltd.

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

Abdul Sattar Haji Usman and Anr. Vs the Archbishop of Bombay and 4 Ors.

Count N Denier Exim Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pasupati Fabrics Ltd.

Louisa Wd/O. Frank D'Souza Vs Suleman S. Bhimani and Ors.

Sanjeev Alias Sanjay Subash Grover Vs Vertex Trading Co. and Anr.

Tapas Kumar Ghosh Vs Shri Afzal Suleman Masnsuri and 2 Ors.

Pragji Savji Vaja and 2 Ors. Vs Chhotalal N. Parmar and 5 Ors.