Allowed

The Federal Bank Ltd. v. Viral Filaments Ltd.

Bombay HC23 Sept 2014SS/825/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court granted an ex-parte decree to The Fedral Bank Limited against Viral Filaments Limited in a summary suit for a liquidated sum of Rs. 1,70,79,452/- with interest under Order XXXVII Rule 2 of the CPC due to the Defendant's non-appearance.

What did the court decide?

Decree passed against Defendant to pay Rs. 1,70,79,452/- with 19% per annum interest; Defendant to pay costs.

The Federal Bank Ltd. Vs Viral Filaments Ltd. — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2014)

Nitin

941-SS-825-2001

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

¶5

SUMMARY SUIT NO. 825 OF 2001

¶6

The Fedral Bank Limited … Plaintiff Versus Viral Filaments Limited … Defendant

¶7

Mr. Vivek S. Sawant for the Plaintiff-bank.

¶8

None for the Defendant.

¶9

CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2014

¶10

JUDGMENT:

¶11

The above Suit is filed by the Plaintiff under the provisions of Order XXXVII Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 seeking a liquidated sum of money due to the Plaintiff from the Defendant under the agreement in writing.

¶12

According to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree and order against the Defendant to pay to the Plaintiff a sum of Rs. 1,70,79,452/- (as per the Statement of Account being Exhibit-I) along with interest @ 19% per annum till the date of decree and with same rate of interest thereon from the date of decree till payment or realization.

¶13

Nitin 2 941-SS-825-2001

¶14

After filing of the above Suit, the Defendant was served with

¶15

the Writ of Summons. However, none appeared for the Defendant. A Reference filed before the BIFR by the Defendant is shown to have been abated as far back as on 13^th November, 2006. Though a Notice is again tried to be served on the Defendant informing them that the matter is placed for ex-parte decree, the same is returned on the ground that the Defendant is not found. The Plaintiff has filed an Affidavit of Service dated 9^th September, 2014 to this effect. In view thereof, the matter is placed for ex-parte decree.

¶16

The learned Advocate appearing for the Plaintiff has tendered the original documents in the matter, which are taken on record. In view of sub rule (3) of Rule 2 of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree against the Defendants.

¶17

5. Hence the following order :

¶18

(i) The above Summary Suit is decreed in terms of the prayer clause (a), which is reproduced hereunder :

¶19

“(a) That the Defendants be ordered and

¶20

decreed to pay a sum of Rs.1,70,79,452/- being

¶21

Nitin

¶22

3 941-SS-825-2001

¶23

the amount due and payable by the Defendants to the Plaintiffs as per Statement of Account being Exhibit-I hereto with interest thereon at the rate of 19% per annum till the date of decree and with same rate of interest thereon from the date of decree till payment or realization”.

¶24

(ii) The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the costs of this Suit. (iii) The Plaintiff is entitled to refund of Court fees, if any, as per Rules.

¶25

(iv) A copy of this Judgment shall be served on the Defendant by Registered Post A.D. at the address shown in the Plaint, by the Advocate for the Plaintiff.

¶26

(v) The Suit is accordingly disposed of.

The Federal Bank Ltd. v. Viral Filaments Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Federal Bank Ltd. v. Viral Filaments 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

Asianol Lubricants Ltd, Vs India Steel Works Ltd, Cin NO.L29100MH1987PLC043186

M/S Della Technica Inteerior Design and Managmet P.Ltd. Vs M/S Avance Technologies Ltd.

Sanatan Sanstha Satara, Trust Represented by Its Trustee Shri Prakash R. Marathe Vs Super Soaps(India) Pvt.Ltd.and 2 Ors., Cin NO.U24240MH2007PTC175781

Jyoti Constructions Vs Golani Builders and Ors.

M/S. Srj Peety Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Wind World (India) Ltd. (Formerly Known as Enercon (India) Ltd.) (Cin U31200DD2003PLC003236)

E Mathias Vs Abg Shipyard Ltd.