Allowed

Gul Murlidhar Kalwani v. Amin Noorali Rangara and Anr.

Bombay HC28 Jul 2015SS/639/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this summary suit, the plaintiff recovered a sum of Rs. 1.13 crore plus interest under a dated agreement after the defendants failed to file a reply or written statement, resulting in a decree ex-parte under Order 37 Rule 3.

What did the court decide?

Decree against defendant nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay Rs. 1,13,40,00/- with interest at 9% p.a. and costs. Prayers for refund of court fees allowed.

Gul Murlidhar Kalwani Vs Amin Noorali… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

11.ss.639.2014.doc

¶3

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

¶4

SUMMARY SUIT NO. 639 OF 2014

¶5

Gul Murlidhar Kalwani .. Plaintiff Vs. AminNoorali Rangara & Anr. .. Defendants

¶6

Mr.Shanay Shah a/w. Ms.Saloni Kapadia i/b M/s. Solomon & Co. for plaintiff.

¶7

CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM, J. DATE : 28^TH JULY, 2015

¶8

P.C.

¶9

1 The plaintiff has filed this suit for recovering amounts under the agreement dated 30.09.2015. It is stated in the plaint that as provided under the agreement, the defendants had to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,13,40,000/-. The plaintiff issued a notice dated 12.04.2014 to which there is no reply. The plaintiff has also filed a joint affidavit of service of one Mr.Anant Dandekar, a Bailiff in the office of the Sheriff of Mumbai and one Mr.Vikas S. Kamati, a representative of the plaintiff, affirmed on 17.05.2015. As on date, no reply has been filed by the defendants. The plaintiff has also filed an affidavit of documents and a compilation of 7 documents. The affidavit of documents is taken on record. The compilation of documents is also taken on record and marked as Exh.P-1 colly. The defendants not having filed any affidavit in reply seeking leave to defend,

1/2

Shraddha Talekar PA

11.ss.639.2014.doc

the plaintiff, under Order 37 Rule 3(6)(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is entitled to decree forthwith in terms of prayer clause (a) which reads as under :

¶15

(a) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to order and decree the defendant nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,13,40,000/- as per Particulars of Claim (Exhibit “E” hereto) with interest on Rs.1.13,40,000/- at the rate of 18% per annum or at such rate as may be decided by this Hon'ble Court from the date of filing of this suit till payment or realization and costs of the suit.

¶16

2 It is further clarified that the interest granted is 9% p.a. and not 18% p.a. The plaintiff will also be entitled to costs in the sum of Rs.50,000/-.

¶17

3 Refund of court fees, if any, in accordance with Rules.

¶18

(K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)

¶19

2/2

¶20

Shraddha Talekar PA

Gul Murlidhar Kalwani v. Amin Noorali Rangara and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gul Murlidhar Kalwani v. Amin Noorali Rangara and Anr.

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

Axis Bank Limited Vs Shreem Corporation Ltd.

Universal Medicare Pvt.Ltd. Vs Uco Bank

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs Gsl (India) Ltd.

Dashrathlal Manecklal Patel and 3 Ors. Vs Alpesh Balubhai Vekaria

Bhaverdevi Agarwal Vs Jatin Khandawala

Shree Financial Services Vs the Official Liquidator, High Court, Delhi Being the Official Liquidator of Uniplas India Limited