Allowed

Mazagaon Dock Ltd. v. Official Liquidator and Anr.

Bombay HC8 Jul 2014S/1541/1983

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a suit against agents and the Principal in liquidation, the court held that the Principal was undefended. It directed an ex-parte decree against the Principal for the claimed amount with interest, as liability remained with the Principal.

What did the court decide?

Ex-parte decree against the 1st Defendant (Official Liquidator of Calcutta High Court) for Rs.15,00,991.21 with interest and Rs.1,87,02,279.50 with interest as per prayer clauses (a) and (b).

Mazagaon Dock Ltd. Vs Official Liquidator and Anr. — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

3-S-15411983.DOC

¶2

ars

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO. 1541 of 1983

¶4

…Plaintiffs

¶5

Mazgaon Dock Ltd.…Plaintiffs
Versus
The Official Liquidator, High Court, Calcutta …Defendants
and Ors.

¶6

Mr.Amir Arsiwala, i/b M/s. U.U.D.B. & Chinoy, for the Plaintiffs.
Ms.Yogini Chauhan, Asstt. Official Liquidator.

¶7

CORAM:G.S. PATEL, J
DATED:July 08, 2014

¶8

PC:-

¶9

By an Order and Judgment dated 5th May 2014, this suit was dismissed as against the 2nd Defendant. In that judgment, I held that the 2nd Defendant was an agent of a disclosed principal, the 1st Defendant, and that it had throughout dealt with the Plaintiffs in that capacity, i.e. as an agent of the 1st Defendant.

¶10

The 1st Defendant is in liquidation and is represented by Official Liquidator attached to the High Court of Calcutta. Despite this matter having been repeatedly adjourned, no written statement has been filed. On the last occasion, by an order dated 26th June

¶11

1 of 3

¶12

3-S-15411983.DOC

¶13

2014 I noted that, following previous directions, the Plaintiff had
sent a notice to the Official Liquidator of the 1st Defendant. The
Official Liquidator of the Calcutta High Court wrote to the Official
Liquidator of this Court to say that the Official Liquidator of the 1st
Defendant had no documents and funds only to the extent of
Rs.3,659/-.

¶14

Therefore, at least as far as, the 1st Defendant is concerned, the suit is undefended.

¶15

The evidence, pleadings, issues and documents have all been considered in the judgment dated 5th May 2014. It is not possible to take a different view at this stage, especially given that the 1st Defendant has not contested these proceedings. From that judgment itself it is evident that the liability was always that of the 1st Defendant.

¶16

In my view, the Plaintiffs are entitled to ex-parte decree against the 1st Defendant. There will, therefore, be a decree against the 1st Defendant in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the plaint with costs.

¶17

(α) that the Defendants jointly and severally or such of them as this Hon’ble Court deems fit, be ordered and decreed to pay to the Plaintiffs the sum of Rs.15,00,991.21 as per particulars of claim, Exhibit ‘W’ hereto with further interest on Rs.9,66,866.63 at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date of filling of the suit till judgment and

¶18

2 of 3

¶19

3-S-15411983.DOC

¶20

thereafter at the same rate or at such other rate as this
Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper.

¶21

(β) that the Defendants jointly and severally or such of them as this Hon’ble Court deems fit, be ordered and decreed to pay to the Plaintiffs the sum of Rs.1,87,02,279.50 as per particulars of claim Exhibit ‘X’ hereto with further interest on Rs.1,49,68,878. 80p. at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date of the filing of the suit till judgment and thereafter at the same rate or at such other rate as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper.

¶22

6. Decree to be drawn up accordingly.

¶23

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶24

3 of 3

Mazagaon Dock Ltd. v. Official Liquidator and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mazagaon Dock Ltd. v. Official Liquidator and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Medley Pharmaceuticals Limited Vs Twilight Mercantiles Private Limited and Anr.

Pandurang Kamlakar Patil and Ors. Vs M/S.Soham Builders and Ors. and Dharmibai Dattatray Patil and Anr. (Applicant)

Vinay Amin and Ors. Vs Sajawat Consultants Bombay Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Smt.Vijaya v. Bhosale

Metro Shoes Ltd. and Rafique Abdul Malik Malik Vs Merito

Toraytex Weaves Pvt. Ltd. Vs Green Emirates Shipping Travels and Ors.

Rashid S. Oomerbhoy Vs Nargis M. Oomerbhoy and 8 Ors.