Dismissed

M/S. M.J.Traders v. M/S. Rohini Industrial Electricals Ltd. - U74210MH1983PLC030705

Bombay HC6 Mar 2014CP/228/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner claimed outstanding dues against the respondent company. The court dismissed the petition because the petitioner failed to establish the remaining disputed balance despite its assertions.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed with the liberty for the petitioner to adopt suitable proceedings to establish the outstanding claim.

M/S. M.J.Traders Vs M/S. Rohini Industrial… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

902-CP228-2012.DOC

¶2

Vishal

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY PETITION NO.228 OF 2012

¶4

M/s.M.J.Traders …Petitioner

¶5

 Versus
M/s.Rohini Industrial Electricals Ltd..Respondent

¶6

Mr.N.M.Shah for the Petitioner.
Mr.Z. Andhyarujina alw M/s.Shreya Gupta i/b.Bharucha &
Partners for the Respondent.

¶7

CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: MARCH 06, 2014

¶8

PC:-

¶9

1.The petitioner claims that M/s.Rohini Industrial Electricals
Limited (“the Company”) is indebted to it in an amount of
Rs.11,05,787/- plus interest of Rs.3,07,971/-.

¶10

2.The petitioner’s claim arises under various invoices.
According to the petitioner, it sold, supplied and delivered various
electrical and hardware goods to the Company under these
invoices. The total value of these invoices was Rs.14,13,758/-.

¶11

1 of 3

¶12

902-CP228-2012.DOC

¶13

3.The Company made part payment of Rs.5,15,321/-. The rest,
the petitioner claims, has remained unpaid despite the service of a
statutory notice.

¶14

4.The Company’s defence in its reply to the statutory notice as
also in the affidavit in reply, is that it has not been possible to
reconcile the petitioner’s claim with the Company’s records and
accounts.

¶15

5.After this petition was taken up for hearing at the stage of
admission, parties did make several attempts at a resolution of the
disputes of the principal amount of Rs.11,05,787/-. The Company
has paid the petitioner a sum of Rs.5,15,321/-. The remaining
amount of Rs.3,95,932/- is disputed on the basis that the Company
can find no record in its own documents, systems and accounts in
relation to this remaining balance claimed. The petitioner’s
invoices that relate to the remainder also did not appear to bear
confirmation of receipt from the Company.

¶16

6.This is merely an observation on the state of the record. It is
not an assessment on merits or a finding that the petitioner, did not,
in fact, deliver the goods under those remaining invoices to the
Company.

¶17

7.In my view, the petitioner will need to adopt suitable
proceedings to establish its claim for the balance amount of
Rs.3,95,932/-. It may need to lead evidence. All contentions of both
parties in this regard are expressly kept open. The petitioner is at
liberty to adopt such proceedings as it deems fit in this behalf.

¶18

2 of 3

¶19

902-CP228-2012.DOC

¶20

8.The petition, is, accordingly dismissed with these
observations. There will be no order as to costs.

¶21

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶22

3 of 3

M/S. M.J.Traders v. M/S. Rohini Industrial Electricals Ltd. - U74210MH1983PLC030705

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. M.J.Traders v. M/S. Rohini Industrial Electricals Ltd. - U74210MH1983PLC030705

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

Sunil Kumar Bose Vs Oilco Services (India) Ltd. - U74999MH1999PLC121514

M/S Jay Ambe Developers Vs M/S Future Retail Ltd.

Sumeet Machines Employees Union through Its President Shri Ramesh N Nagare Vs the Official Liquidator (Sumeet Machines Ltd. )in Liquidation

Shyam B.Luthria Vs Udharam B.Luthria and Ors.

M/S. Eagle Sales Corporation Vs M/S. Rohini Industrial Electricals Ltd. - U74210MH1983PLC030705

M/S.Essen Electrical Enterprise Vs M/S. Rohini Industrial Electricals Ltd. - U74210MH1983PLC030705