Dismissed

M/S Pratik Enterprises v. Darshan Oils Ltd.

Bombay HC3 Jul 2015SJ/34/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay held that a suit for recovery of debt advanced by the plaintiff to suppliers on behalf of the defendant does not fall under classes maintained for a summary suit under Order 37 of the CPC. The court dismissed the summons for judgment and transferred the suit to commercial causes.

What did the court decide?

Summons for judgment dismissed. Suit transferred to commercial causes. Defendant directed to file written statement.

M/S Pratik Enterprises Vs Darshan Oils Ltd. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

907.sj.34.2014.ss.923.2004.doc

¶3

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

¶4

SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 34 OF 2014 IN

¶5

SUMMARY SUIT NO. 923 OF 2004

¶6

M/s. Pratik Enterprises

.. Plaintiff

Vs.

Darshan Oils Ltd.

.. Defendant

Ms. Sandhya Lokhande i/b N.N. Vaishnawa & Co. for plaintiff.

¶12

Ms.Ambreen Saheed i/b M. Dhruva & Co. for defendant.

¶13

CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM, J. DATE : 3^RD JULY, 2015

¶14

P.C.

¶15

1 After the suit was filed, the defendantfiled a reference to B.I.F.R. Therefore, the plaintiff did not take out any summons for judgment.

¶16

2 By an order dated, 2.07.2014, it was noted that the advocate for the defendant states that the B.I.F.R. proceedings have abated. In view thereof, the plaintiff took out the present summons for judgment. No reply has been filed by the defendant. Ms.Ambreen Saheed i/b M.Druva & Co. states that they have not been receiving any instruction in the matter from the defendant and therefore, they have filed a chamber order for discharge in the matter.

1/4

Shraddha Talekar PA

907.sj.34.2014.ss.923.2004.doc

¶21

3 The case of the plaintiff as stated in the plaint is that the plaintiff lent and advanced various amounts to the defendant from time to time to make payment on his behalf to various suppliers. The plaintiff states that they have, on request of the defendant, made a payment of Rs.30,56,288/- to M/s. Liberty Oil Mills Ltd. sometime in August 1996. The plaintiff, thereafter, made a payment of Rs.23,21,070/- to one M/s. B.Prem Kumar Trading Pvt. Ltd. at the request of the defendant also in August 1996. Thereafter, the plaintiff made four further payments on behalf of the defendant to Godrej Foods Ltd.; Liberty Oil Mills Ltd., Shantilal & Co. and B. Arunkumar Trading (P) Ltd. in the sum of Rs.7,95,227/-, Rs.28,45,822/-, Rs.9,11,483/and Rs.4,13,373/- respectively. Therefore, the plaintiff states that they had advanced a total sum of Rs.1,03,43,263/- to the defendant by making payment to various parties for and on behalf of the defendant.

¶22

4 The defendant has admitted liability by providing to the plaintiff its statement of accounts on as 31.08.2000 whereby the defendant states that they owe to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,15,38,849/- as on 31.08.2000. The defendant has also been issuing TDS certificates to the plaintiff. A similar letter was issued by the defendant on 14.08.2001 whereby the defendant has admitted that they owe to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,19,34,084/- towards principal and Rs.20,21,661/- towards interest. The defendant, however, did

2/4

Shraddha Talekar PA

907.sj.34.2014.ss.923.2004.doc

¶27

not make any payment despite repeated demands from the plaintiff. The counsel for the plaintiff, therefore, submits that the defendant having admitted the liability, the plaintiff is entitled to a summary decree under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶28

Order 37 Rule 2 lists the classes of suits to which the said order would apply. Order 37(1)(2) read as under :

¶29

Order 37 Rule 1

¶30

(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (1) the Order applies to the following classes of suits, namely:—

¶31

(a) suits upon bills of exchange, hundies and promissory notes;

¶32

(b) suits in which the plaintiff seeks only to recover a debt or liquidated demand in money payable by the

¶33

defendant, with or without interest, arising,—

¶34

(i) on a written contract, or

¶35

(ii) on an enactment, where the sum sought to be recovered is a fixed sum of money or in the nature of a

¶36

debt other than a penalty; or

¶37

(iii) on a guarantee, where the claim against the principal is in respect of a debt or liquidated demand only.

¶38

5 I do not find any averment that the suit would fall under any class

¶39

mentioned in Order 37(1)(2). The suit as filed is not a suit upon bills of

3/4

Shraddha Talekar PA

907.sj.34.2014.ss.923.2004.doc

¶44

exchange, hundies and promissory notes. In the suit though the plaintiff is seeking only to recover a debt or liquidated demand in money with interest payable by the defendant, the same is not arising on a written contract or on

¶45

an enactment or on a guarantee. Therefore, in my view, the suit is not maintainable as a summary suit.

¶46

6 The summons for judgment is, therefore, dismissed. The suit be transferred to the list of commercial causes.

¶47

7 The defendant to file written statement within four weeks from today.

¶48

8 Stand over to 3.08.2015 for directions.

¶49

(K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)

¶50

4/4

¶51

Shraddha Talekar PA

M/S Pratik Enterprises v. Darshan Oils Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Pratik Enterprises v. Darshan Oils 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

M/S. Htp Global Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Omnitech Infosolutions Ltd.

Cummins Turbo Technologies Ltd. and Anr. Vs Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation and Anr.

Canara Bank and Ors. Vs Bulaki Das Bhaiya and Ors.

Belim Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs Prime Steel

Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs Littlehomes Trading Pvt. Ltd.

L.I.C.Housing Finance Ltd. Vs M/S.Prakash Industries