Allowed

M/S Electro Trade Throu. Its Sole Prop. Ashok Bengani v. M/S Hagar Electro

Bombay HC2 Apr 2024IA/185/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court modified the amount kept for leave to defend a special summary suit. The court directed the defendant to deposit Rs. 15 lakhs instead of the higher amount and ordered the trial court to conclude the suit within six months.

What did the court decide?

Modification of the deposit amount required for leave to defend to Rs. 15 lakhs; direction to trial court to decide the suit within six months.

M/S Electro Trade Throu. Its Sole Prop. Ashok… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

3.WP.1117.2020+.doc

¶2

HARSHADA H. SAWANT (P.A.)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1117 OF 2020

¶6

M/s. Electro Trade Petitioner .. (Orig. Defendant) Versus Hager Electro Pvt. Ltd. Respondent .. (Orig. Plaintiff)

¶7

.. (Orig. Defendant)

¶8

WITH

¶9

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.185 OF 2024

¶10

IN WRIT PETITION NO.1117 OF 2020

¶11

M/s. Electro Trade .. Applicant

¶12

Versus

¶13

Hager Electro Pvt. Ltd. .. Respondent

¶14

Ms. Sushma Singh a/w. Ms. Mansi Pawar i./by S. K. Singhi & Partners LLP, Advocate for Petitioner.

¶15

Ms. Anushka Jadhav i./by Nehru and Co., Advocate for Respondent.

¶16

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : APRIL 02, 2024

¶17

P.C.:

¶18

1. Heard Ms. Singh, learned Advocate for Petitioner and Ms.

¶19

Jadhav, learned Advocate for Respondent.

¶20

2. Ms. Singh would submit that the impugned order is passed

¶21

below Exhibit-29 in Special Summary Suit No.67 of 2016 is dated 21.11.2019.

¶22

3. By virtue of the said order, Defendant has been directed to

¶23

deposit an amount of Rs.35,47,939.25 paise or to provide bank

¶24

1 of 3

¶25

3.WP.1117.2020+.doc

¶26

guarantee to defend the suit.

¶27

4. From reading of the defence taken by the Defendant which is enumerated in paragraph Nos.3 and 5 of the impugned order and as recorded by the Trial Court and the relationship between the parties and after considering the same, I have put across to Ms. Singh to show the Defendant’s bonafides and considering that principal amount of Rs.26,00,000/- involved in the present case, if Defendant is ready and willing to deposit a substantial amount within a period of six weeks from today, leave to defend shall be allowed by this Court.

¶28

5. Ms. Jadhav opposes the same stating that apart from the principal amount there is levy of interest also and the total amount therefore is much higher. Though in the impugned order it is stated that there exist 26 invoices between the parties in so far transactions are concerned with respect to various orders, it is contended by the Writ Petitioner that there are 46 invoices.

¶29

6. Ms. Jadhav would however submit that there are in fact 46 invoices but there is a clear admission on the part of the Defendant that part-payment has been made in respect of most of the invoices.

¶30

7. After taking instructions, Ms. Singh would submit that an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- shall be deposited by the Defendants within a period of six weeks from today. In that view of the matter, order dated 21.11.2019 shall stand as it is save and except the change in

¶31

2 of 3

¶32

3.WP.1117.2020+.doc

¶33

amount of Rs.35,47,939.25 paise by appearing in the operative part of the order which now stands substituted to Rs.15,00,000/- and the Defendant is permitted to deposit the same i.e. Rs.15,00,000/- within a period of six weeks before the Trial Court from today.

¶34

8. Once the amount is deposited, the learned Trial Court shall proceed with the hearing of Special Summary Suit No.67 of 2016 and learned Trial Court is directed to determine the said Special Summary Suit No.67 of 2016 as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of six months from today. All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.

¶35

9. With the above directions, Writ Petition is allowed and disposed.

¶36

10. In view of disposal of Writ Petition, pending Interim Application No.185 of 2024 is also disposed.

¶37

H. H. SAWANT

¶38

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

¶39

Digitally signed HARSHADAHANUMANT by HARSHADAHANUMANTSAWANT SAWANT Date: 2024.04.02 19:50:01 +0530

¶40

3 of 3

M/S Electro Trade Throu. Its Sole Prop. Ashok Bengani v. M/S Hagar Electro

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Electro Trade Throu. Its Sole Prop. Ashok Bengani v. M/S Hagar Electro

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. Throu. Its Chief Executive Officer and Ors. Vs Suwarna Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Throu. Its Director and Ors.

Mandakini Hanmant Sawant Vs Anil Namdev Sawant and Anr.

Miss. Preshita Mahesh Deshpande and Anr. Vs Prakash Madhukar Dashputre and Anr.

Smt. Marubai Narayan Thakur and Ors. Vs Neha Enterprises, Thru Prop. Smt. Babi Jaganath Hiray

Smt. Marubai Narayan Thakur and Ors. Vs M/S. Neha Enterprises Thru Prop. Smt. Babi Jaganath Hiray

Sanjay Prabhakar Sali Vs Mukund Shantaram Raut and Ors.