Dismissed

M/S Sai Coal Service, Thr. Proprietor, Prashant Vitthalrao Kapse and Another v. M/S. Jitta Trading Company, a Proprietorship Concern of, Mukesh H. Jain Thr. P.O.a., H. S. Jain

Bombay HC23 Apr 2024WP/2445/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A summary suit for recovery sought leave to defend; the trial court granted conditional leave requiring deposit of Rs.44,67,508/-. On finding the petitioners' reply to demand notice admitted liability to that extent, the High Court declined to interfere and dismissed the writ petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

M/S Sai Coal Service, Thr. Proprietor, Prashant… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-NAG:8109

¶2

1 953.WP.2445-2024.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2445 OF 2024

¶5

( M/s. Sai Coal Service, a Proprietorship Concern, Thr. Its Proprietor Prashant Vitthalrao Kapse & Anr.

¶6

Vs.

¶7

M/s. Jitta Trading Company, A proprietorship concern of Shri Mukul S/o Harikishan Jain )

¶8

Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders

¶9

Mr. A.P. Thakare, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. P.B. Agrawal, Advocate a/w Mr. S.K. Agrawal, Advocate for the Respondent.

¶10

CORAM: N.R. BORKAR, J.

¶11

DATED : 19^th JULY, 2024

¶12

This Petition takes exception to the order dated 20.12.2023 passed by 12^th Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur below Exh.13 in Sum.C.S. No.179/2023.

¶13

2 . The Respondent herein has filed the summary suit against the Petitioners for recovery of amount of Rs.90,89,606/-. By the order impugned, the trial court has allowed the application filed by the Petitioners for leave to defend the suit subject to deposit of Rs.44,67,508/-.

¶14

3 . I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and learned Counsel for the Respondent.

¶15

4 . The learned Counsel for the Petitioners, submits

¶16

2 953.WP.2445-2024.odt

¶17

that the cheques in question were issued towards security. It is submitted that, the trial court has found that there are tribal issues involved in the suit. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners, submits that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court ought to have granted unconditional leave to defend the suit.

¶18

5 . I have perused the impugned order. It appears that the Petitioners, in their reply to demand notice issued by the Respondent, have admitted their liability to the extent of Rs.44,67,508/-. I am therefore not inclined to interfere in the order impugned.

¶19

6 . The Petition is dismissed . No costs.

¶20

7 . Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.

¶21

(N.R. BORKAR, J.)

¶22

SD. Bhimte

¶23

Signed by: Mr.S.D.Bhimte Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 30/07/2024 15:35:13

M/S Sai Coal Service, Thr. Proprietor, Prashant Vitthalrao Kapse and Another v. M/S. Jitta Trading Company, a Proprietorship Concern of, Mukesh H. Jain Thr. P.O.a., H. S. Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M/S Sai Coal Service, Thr. Proprietor, Prashant Vitthalrao Kapse and Another v. M/S. Jitta Trading Company, a Proprietorship Concern of, Mukesh H. Jain Thr. P.O.a., H. S. Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shirish S/O Ravi Bagde vs Smt. Farha W/O Shirish Bagde, Farhat D/O Tanvir Abdul Rashid Sheikh (Maiden Name)

Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. Thr.Its in-Charge C.E.O., Amravati vs Pundalik Shankar Dakre

Metal Mining Industrial Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director, Nagpur vs State Tax Officer, Nagpur

Ashok S/O Jagatnarayan Pande vs Kailash S/O Jagatnarayan Pande and Others

Ramesh S/O Ramchandra Mahajan vs Anil S/O Damodar Tanksale and Others

Sau. Kanchan W/O Arvind Kadav vs Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and Others