Dismissed

The State of Maharshtra through the Commissioner of Sales Tax v. M/S. Systems Communications and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Mar 2014S/2120/1988

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought a declaration that a prior suit and decree were fraudulent and nullified certain mortgages and property purchases. The High Court dismissed the suit because the applicant failed to lead evidence despite sufficient opportunity, showing it could not proceed as a litigant.

What did the court decide?

Suit dismissed; no order as to costs.

The State of Maharshtra through the Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs M/S. Systems Communications and Ors. — Bombay HC (2014) — LawSathi Research

¶1

904-S-2120-88.DOC

¶2

Shephali

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO. 2120 of 1988

¶4

The State of Maharashtra through the …Plaintiff
Commissioner of Sales Tax.
Versus
M/s. Systems Communications and others.…Defendants

¶5

Ms. A. Calcuttawala, AGP for the Plaintiff.
Mr. Sequira i/b Kanga & Co. for Defendant No. 7..
Mr. S. R. Rajguru a/w Mr. Varma for Defendant No.7

¶6

CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: MARCH 11, 2014

¶7

PC:-

¶8

1.This is a suit of 1988. The plaintiff is the State of
Maharashtra through the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Mumbai.
The suit is filed inter alia for a declaration that another Suit No.
2286 of 1983 and the consent decree passed in that suit on 16th
April 1987 are fraudulent, collusive, illegal and null and void; and
for a declaration that there is no valid, legal or substantive mortgage
or other encumbrance created by defendants No. 1 to 4 in favour of
defendant No. 5, and that the plaintiffs and other creditors are
entitled to proceed in law against the suit properties. A purchase
transaction by defendant No. 6 of immovable property at Mittal
Towers, Nariman Point, Bombay is also impeached, as is a purchase

¶9

1 of 2

¶10

904-S-2120-88.DOC

¶11

by defendant No. 8 of property at Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman
Point, Bombay.

¶12

2.The frame of these prayers clearly requires that evidence be
led. The cause of action in the suit is based on the averments of
fraud and collusion. These must not only be pleaded, but must also
be proved. Despite sufficient opportunity from January 2014, the
plaintiffs have been unable to proceed with the matter either by
filing documents or their affidavit in lieu of examination in chief. It
is true that the plaintiff is the State of Maharashtra through one of
its taxation agencies. But that does not mean that endless latitude
can be shown to the plaintiffs. If the State chooses to be a plaintiff
in this court, then it has an obligation to conduct its case as every
other litigant and to take it to its logical conclusion. Like every
other litigant the State too must be ready to proceed with the matter
when required to do so. This it has not done.

¶13

3.Even today the learned advocate for the plaintiffs states that
she is handicapped for want of instructions. Despite her best efforts
these have not been forthcoming. There is no manner of doubt that
the plaintiffs are not in a position to proceed with the suit.

¶14

4.The result is inevitable. The suit is dismissed. There will be
no order as to the costs.

¶15

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶16

2 of 2

The State of Maharshtra through the Commissioner of Sales Tax v. M/S. Systems Communications and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharshtra through the Commissioner of Sales Tax v. M/S. Systems Communications and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra Vs the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay

Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs M/S.Shivcharan Agarwal.

Shadab Ahmed Khan and Anr. Vs Mohammed Akhtar Shaikh and Mukesh Gover Gala and Anr. ..Applicants

Kasha Syncotex Ltd. Vs Smps Engineers and Consultants (Bom).P.Ltd.

Sh. Jagdish Lal Gupta Vs Tara Industrires Limited and 8 Ors.

Sh. Jagdish Lal Gupta Vs Tara Industrires Limited and 8 Ors.