Dismissed

Purav Construction and Anr. v. Smt. Smita Jagdish Yagnik and Anr.

Bombay HC14 Jan 2022WP/452/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In WP-452 of 2022, the Bombay High Court dismissed the petition challenging the grant of conditional leave to defend in a summary suit. The court held that documentary evidence proved a concluded contract and acknowledged debt, making the suit maintainable and within limitation.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; impugned order granting leave to defend on condition of deposit remains intact.

Purav Construction and Anr. Vs Smt. Smita… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2022)

9 wp-452-22.doc

BDP-SPS- TAC

BHARAT

DASHARATH PANDIT

Digitally signed by BHARATDASHARATH PANDIT Date: 2022.01.17 12:03:46 +0530

¶6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 452 OF 2022

¶8

M/s Purav Construction & Anr….. Petitioners.
 V/s

¶9

Smt. Smita Jagdish Yagnik and Anr.….. Respondents.

¶10

Mr. Rohan Sawant i/b Idris M. Vora for the Petitioners.
Mr. Jay Vakil a/w Zain Mookhi for the Respondents.

¶11

CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

¶12

 DATE: JANUARY 14, 2022

¶13

P.C.:-

¶14

1] In a Summary Suit No.658 of 2018, while dealing with
Summons for Judgment, claim of the Petitioners/Defendants for grant

¶15

of unconditional leave to defend came to be allowed, subject to

¶16

deposit of principal amount of Rs 24 lakhs. As such, this Petition.

¶17

2]Mr. Sawant, learned Counsel for the Petitioners would
strenuously urge that transaction between the parties is not money
lending and that being so, suit under Section 13 of the Money Lending

¶18

Act, 2014 is not maintainable. In addition to above, according to him,

¶19

suit should have been in the nature of commercial dispute and Court

¶20

1/4

¶21

9 wp-452-22.doc

¶22

which has passed the judgment impugned is not armed with
jurisdiction to exercise exercise power to entertain summary suit, as
the claim in the suit is above Rs 24 lakhs. His contentions are,
summary suit is not maintainable based on honoured cheque. He
would claim that unless there is concluded contract, small cause suit
for recovery of the amount is not maintainable. Apart from above, it is
claimed that suit is time barred.

¶23

3]While countering aforesaid submissions, Mr. Vakil, learned
Counsel appearing for Respondents/Plaintiffs would urge that Court
below in detail has dealt with all the aforesaid issues and the suit is
verymuch maintainable. According to him, there is enough material to
demonstrate that liability is in fact admitted by the Petitioners in their

¶24

own record and that being so, present Petition is liable to be
dismissed.

¶25

4]Learned Counsel for the Petitioners so as to substantiate his
claim that suit is not maintainable based on honoured cheque and
unsettled account, has drawn support from the Full Bench Judgment
of this Court in the matter of Jyotsna K. Valia vs. T.S. Parekh and Co.

¶26

2/4

¶27

9 wp-452-22.doc

¶28

reported in 2007(4) Mh.L.J. 517. According to learned Counsel,
paragraphs 25 to 28 are worth referring to. According to him, there is
neither concluded contract between the parties nor there is contract in
writing and that being so, summary suit is not maintainable. As such,
Petitioners have strong case to defend. That being so Petitioners are
entitled for grant of unconditional leave to defend.

¶29

5]As far as aforesaid submissions are concerned, it is required to be
noted that late husband and father of Plaintiff No.1 transferred the
amount of Rs 24 lakhs to the account of Defendants vide two cheques
i.e. one of Rs 10 lakhs dated 14th October, 2014 and the other of Rs 14
lakhs dated 14th September, 2015. The present Petitioners paid
interest at the rate of rs 14% per annum and accordingly interest was
deposited in the account of the Plaintiffs starting from 5th November,
2014 at the rate of Rs 10,479/-. The second transaction between the

¶30

parties took place on 14th September, 2015 and the suit was brought
into action within three years for recovery on 23rd April, 2018. As
such, prima facie, it is demonstrated that suit is within limitation and
transaction appears to be friendly loan transaction. Apart from above,
documentary evidence brought on record, particularly bank account

¶31

3/4

¶32

9 wp-452-22.doc

¶33

entries, Income Tax Returns categorically demonstrate that Petitioners
have acknowledged and shown the amount to be payable to the tune
of Rs 26,48,066/- to the husband of original Plaintiff No.1. As such,
aforesaid material is sufficient to infer that there was concluded
contract between the parties and the suit was well within limitation.
In that view of the matter, contention that suit is barred by limitation
and suit is based on honoured cheque cannot be accepted. Rather,
there is enough material on record to infer strong case in favour of the
Plaintiffs. That being so, no case for interference under extraordinary
jurisdiction is made out. Petition as such fails and same stands
dismissed.

¶34

(NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )

¶35

4/4

Purav Construction and Anr. v. Smt. Smita Jagdish Yagnik and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purav Construction and Anr. v. Smt. Smita Jagdish Yagnik and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Jagruti Omkar Awasarkar Vs Shri. Omkar Pradip Awasarkar

Smt. Sayali Pavan Vaychal @ Sayali Anil Ganbavale Vs Pavan Anil Vaychal

Sou. Rasilaben Mulchand Shaha Vs the Commissioner Sangli, Miraj and Kupwad City Municipal Corporation

Sitaram Govind Panse and Anr. Vs Laxman Govind Panse

Giridhar Sudamrao Pansare Thr. Poa. Vinay Giridhar Pansare Vs Kailas Prabhakar Shelar and Ors.

M/S. Kering Patil Assoicates and Another Vs M/S. Vitoria Thr. Partners