This company petition involving contractual disputes over civil services and fit-outs was dismissed by the High Court of Bombay due to serious disputed questions of fact and the presence of serious allegations requiring evidence.
The petition was dismissed. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
911 CP NO.808_2015.DOC
JSN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY PETITION NO.808 OF 2015
Pacific Interirors Pvt. Ltd....Petitioner
Versus
Junobo Hotels Private Ltd....Respondent
...Respondent
Mr. Vikram Sathye,a/w. Mr. Abhishek Sawant, Ms. Jyoti Ghag, i/b.
Thakore Jariwala & Associates for the Petitioner.
Mr. Javed Gaya,a/w. Ms. Lokhandwala a/w. Ms.Vidya Choudhari,
a/w. H.V. Kode i/b. M/s. Chambers of Javed Gaya for the
Respondent.
CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J. DATED: 15th March 2016
P.C.
1.I have by a separate order today dismissed, essentially on the
ground of disputed questions of fact, a companion Petition No.720
of 2015. The Petitioner in the present case is a sister concern of the
Petitioner in Company Petition No.720 of 2015. It seems that the
Respondent and the Petitioner in the present Company Petition had
contractual dealings relating to the same project involved in the
other petition. The present Petitioner was engaged to provide
certain civil services including fit outs, layouts and so on. Disputes
arose in regard to the Petitioner’s performance of these contractual
obligations. The Respondent says that the work was unsatisfactory
and have to be redone through new consultants. There are
1 of 2
911 CP NO.808_2015.DOC
allegations and counter allegations and these disputes have also
been taken to arbitration. Both contracts were interlinked; the one
in this Petition related to civil work (a civil works contract), and the
one in the companion Petition related to certain services such as
obtaining clearances and so on.
2.Even most cursory look at this Petition and the Affidavit in
Reply to it leads me to believe that these disputes are not matters
that can be decided in a summary jurisdiction. All these require
taking evidence. There is no admitted debt or liability. There are
serious disputes about the quality of work and its timeliness.
3. This Petition also dismissed. No order as to costs.
(G. S. PATEL, J.)
2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the present contract dispute involving disputed questions of fact and quality of work is maintainable summarily.
Whether the matter requires evidence taking instead of being decided in a summary jurisdiction.
Pacific Interiors Pvt. Ltd.
Junobo Hotels Private Ltd.
G.S. Patel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court