Allowed

Prime Broking Company (India) Ltd. v. Sphere Agrotech Ltd.

Bombay HC3 Jul 2014SS/5641/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a summary suit filed for recovery of a liquidated debt, the court granted an ex parte decree against the absent Defendant for the principal sum amounting to approximately Rs. 3.98 crore along with interest at 18% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Ex parte decree passed directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff Rs. 3,98,68,596.79 including interest at 18% p.a. and costs.

Prime Broking Company (India) Ltd. Vs Sphere… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2014)

Nitin

SS-5641-1999

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

¶5

¶6

SUMMARY SUIT NO. 5641 OF 1999.

¶7

Prime Broking Company (India) Limited … Plaintiff Versus Sphere Agrotech Limited … Defendant

¶8

Mr. P. Sharma a/w. Mr. Amol i/b Udwadia Udeshi & Argus Partners for the Plaintiff.

¶9

None for the Defendant.

¶10

CORAM: S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE: 3 rd July, 2014

¶11

JUDGEMENT:

¶12

The Plaintiff in the above Summary Suit has sought a decree against the Defendant for a sum of Rs. 3,98,68,596.79/- ( Rupees Three Crores Ninety Eight Lakhs Sixty Eight Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Six and paise Seventy Nine) together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the principal sum of Rs. 1,80,22,040/- (Rupees One Crore Eighty Lakhs Twenty two Thousand Forty) as mentioned in the Particulars of Claim at Exhibit “H” of the Plaint, from the date of filing of the present Suit till payment and/or realisation.

¶13

2 SS-5641-1999

¶14

Nitin

¶15

The Plaintiff has served the Writ of Summons on the Defendant by way of substituted service i.e. through publication in “Lok Satta” of its Mumbai edition on 30^th May, 2000. An Affidavit proving service through publication dated 3^rd July, 2014 is on record. However, despite the said publication, the Defendant has not appeared before the Court. In view thereof, the Suit is placed before this Court for passing of an ex parte decree.

¶16

The Plaintiff has filed the above Suit as a Summary Suit under the provisions of Order XXXVII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Defendant for recovery of a liquidated sum of money being due and payable by the Defendant to the Plaintiff in respect of an agreement recorded by the Plaintiff in their letter dated 2^nd April, 1996. The Defendant has failed/neglected to make payment to the Plaintiff in respect of an amount of Rs. 3,98,68,596.79/- ( Rupees Three Crores Ninety Eight Lakhs Sixty Eight Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Six and paise Seventy Nine) as on 20^th September, 1999 together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the principal sum of Rs. 1,80,22,040/-.

¶17

The Defendant had further issued cheques of Rs. 5 lakhs dated

¶18

3 SS-5641-1999

¶19

Nitin

¶20

30^th June,1996, Rs. 10 lakhs dated 31^st July, 1996 and of Rs. 10 lakhs dated 31^st August, 1996, in favour of the Plaintiff, in part payment of their liability. All the above mentioned cheques have been dishonoured upon presentation for payment.

¶21

The Plaintiff has placed the original documents on record. In view of sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 of the Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Plaintiff is forthwith entitled to a decree against the Defendant.

¶22

6. Hence the following order :

¶23

(i) The Defendant is ordered and decreed to pay the Plaintiff a sum of Rs. 3,98,68,596.79/- ( Rupees Three Crores Ninety Eight Lakhs Sixty Eight Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Six and paise Seventy Nine) together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the principal sum of Rs. 1,80,22,040/- (Rupees One Crore Eighty Lakhs Twenty two Thousand Forty) till payment and/or realization thereof.

¶24

(ii) The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the costs of this Suit.

¶25

(iii) The Plaintiff is entitled to refund of Court fees, if any, as per

¶26

Rules.

¶27

(iv) A copy of this Judgment shall be served on the Defendant

¶28

4 SS-5641-1999

¶29

Nitin

¶30

by Registered Post A.D. at the address shown in the Plaint, by the

¶31

Advocates for the Plaintiff.

¶32

The Suit is accordingly disposed of.

¶33

( S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. )

Prime Broking Company (India) Ltd. v. Sphere Agrotech Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prime Broking Company (India) Ltd. v. Sphere Agrotech Ltd.

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

Ruby Dorabji Leninwalla Vs

Chandrakant J. Shah Vs Narendra J. Shah

N.V. Kelkar and Anr. Vs

Shri Shambu Parshuram Renake Vs C.P.Renake and Ors.

Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs Enkay Texofood Industries Ltd.

Sabhapati M. Mishra Vs L. M. Mishra