Allowed

Develiopment Investment Trustee Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. Delklip Investments Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Sept 2014SS/3077/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a Summons for Judgment in a summary suit for debt recovery based on uncontroverted plaint allegations and filed documents. Court granted joint and several payment of principal sum and interest.

What did the court decide?

Directing Defendants to jointly and severally pay Rs.1,84,92,626 with further interest at 6% p.a. on Rs.1,60,00,000 from filing date till payment and costs of suit.

Develiopment Investment Trustee Co. Ltd. and Anr. Vs… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2014)

Nitin

910-SJ-33-2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 33 OF 2014

¶5

¶6

SUMMARY SUIT NO. 3077 OF 2003

¶7

Development Investment Trustee Co. Limited & Anr. … Plaintiffs Versus

¶8

Delklip Investments Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

¶9

… Defendants

¶10

Mr. Shyam Kapadia a/w. Ms. S. Kanade i/b. Negandhi Shah & Himayatullah for the Plaintiffs. None for the Defendants.

¶11

CORAM: S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE: 9TH SEPTEMBER, 2014

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

The above Summary Suit is filed by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants under the provisions of Order XXXVII, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the recovery of debts / liquidated sum of money arising out of the written contract namely the agreement dated 29^th August, 2000 entered into between the Plaintiffs and Defendant No. 1 read with the contract of personal guarantee dated 29^th August, 2000 entered into between the Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos. 2 and 3.

¶14

According to the Plaintiffs, certain shares which were

¶15

deposited with the escrow agents have been handed over by the escrow agents to the Defendant No. 1 and the Plaintiffs are not in possession of

¶16

Nitin 2 910-SJ-33-2014

¶17

the said shares.

¶18

After the Writ of Summons was served on the Defendants, their Advocate Mr. Shashank C. Thatte filed his appearance on behalf of the Defendants. The Plaintiffs therefore took out the above Summons for Judgment and tried to serve the same on the said Advocate. The said Advocate appearing for the Defendants accepted service of the Summons for Judgment under protest and requested to the Plaintiffs to serve the Summons for Judgment on the Defendants. The Plaintiffs tried to effect service of the Summons for Judgment on the Defendants. However the Defendants were not traceable. In view thereof, the Plaintiffs have served the above Summons of Judgment on the Defendants by substituted service i.e. through publication as per the order of this Court dated 10^th July, 2014. However, the Defendants and/or their Advocate/s are absent. No Affidavit in Reply is filed by the Defendants. Therefore, the statements/allegations made in the Plaint as well as in the Affidavit in support of the Summons for Judgment have remained uncontroverted.

¶19

The compilation of documents tendered by the Plaintiffs is taken on record. I am satisfied that the Plaintiffs are entitled to a Judgment as sought in the Summons for Judgment. The Summons for Judgment is, therefore, allowed as prayed and the Defendants are

¶20

Nitin 3 910-SJ-33-2014

¶21

directed jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,84,92,626/together with further interest on the principal amount of Rs.1,60,00,000/at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the Suit till payment and/or realization. The Defendants shall also pay the costs of Suit to the Plaintiffs. The above Summons for Judgment and Summary Suit accordingly stand disposed of.

¶22

( S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. )

Develiopment Investment Trustee Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. Delklip Investments Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Develiopment Investment Trustee Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. Delklip Investments Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Infrasofttech India Limited Vs -

Lehman Brothers Capital Private Limited Vs -

Rizvi Land Developments Private Limited Vs -

Glitternena S.R.1 and 2 Ors. Vs Amity Leather International and 3 Ors.

M/S Emco Agencies Vs through the Union of India

Air Force Group Insurance Society Vs Pravin v.Sheth and Ors.