Disposed

Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. Merino Industries Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC16 Apr 2024WP/8289/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner's commercial suit sought recovery of amounts for installation sheets supplied to two defendants, with cheques issued by Defendant No.1. The High Court quashed the impugned order restricting proceedings, directed the suit to proceed against both defendants within six months, set aside the deposit order and attachment before judgment.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; suit directed against both defendants; deposit order and attachment before judgment set aside; written statement within four weeks.

Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Vs Merino Industries… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

6. CIVIL WP-8289-2022.docx

¶2

Amberkar

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 8289 OF 2022

¶6

Larsen and Toubro Ltd .. Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Merino Industries Ltd & Anr.

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

Mr. Darshit Jain a/w Mr. Mayur Bhojwani & Ms. Dhamini Nagpal i/by Manilal Kher Ambalal & Co for Petitioner

¶11

Mr. Pankaj Shantilal Shah for Respondent No. 1

¶12

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : APRIL 16, 2024

¶13

P. C.:

¶14

Heard Mr. Jain, learned Advocate for Petitioner and Mr. Shah, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 1.

¶15

After hearing Mr. Shah and Mr. Jain, learned Advocates for the parties before me in the present Writ Petition and Interim Application both, a clarificatory order was passed by me on 21.02.2024 directing the suit proceedings to proceed against Defendant No. 1. This is a Commercial Suit filed for recovery of amounts against Defendant Nos. 1 and 2. There are two Defendants. Defendant No. 1 is Add Plus Enterprises (Respondent No. 2 herein) who had issued cheques to the Petitioner (Org. Plaintiff) pursuant to supply of installation sheets which were used in the project undertaken by Defendant No. 1 on behalf of Defendant No. 2. It is Defendant No. 2’s case that it had

¶16

1 of 3

¶17

6. CIVIL WP-8289-2022.docx

¶18

independently procured the installation sheets from Defendant No. 1 independently and also paid for the same. Though by virtue of the impugned order, the Suit has been directed to be proceeded against Defendant No. 1, I have impressed upon Mr. Shah and Mr. Jain that this is a case where the Plaintiff on supply of goods to the Defendants had raised invoices which according to Plaintiff have remained unpaid and therefore Plaintiff has approached the Court by filing the Commercial Suit.

¶19

In so far as Defendant No. 2 is concerned, the goods rather installation sheets which were supplied by the Plaintiff were admittedly used for installation. Mr. Shah would submit that Defendant No. 2 would therefore be the guarantor, which submission is refuted by Mr. Jain, learned Advocate for Defendant No. 2. However, this does not take away the fact that the goods supplied by the Plaintiff were actually used or rather installed by Defendant No. 1 in the project of Defendant No. 2. In that view of the matter, this being a Commercial Suit, I am inclined to direct the learned Trial Court to proceed with the Commercial Summary Suit No. 8 of 2021 both against Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 both in accordance with law. Needless to state that the Suit shall be tried as expeditiously as possible and in any event shall be decided within a period of six months from today. In that view, the impugned order dated

¶20

2 of 3

¶21

6. CIVIL WP-8289-2022.docx

¶22

21.04.2022 is quashed and set aside with a direction to Defendant No. 2 to file its written statement within a period of four weeks from today. On such written statement being filed, learned Trial Court is directed to proceed with the suit proceedings as directed by this Court against both Defendants and determine the same in accordance with law. Needless to state that the order of deposit against Defendant No. 2 is set aside in view of the aforesaid directions.

¶23

It is further clarified that the order pertaining to attachment before judgment as noted by the learned Trial Court in its order dated 08.10.2021 at page Nos. 410A-410B of the Petition is set aside.

¶24

All contentions of the parties to the Suit proceedings are expressly kept open.

¶25

With the above directions, Writ Petition is disposed.

¶26

Amberkar

¶27

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

¶28

Digitally signed RAVINDRAMOHAN by RAVINDRAMOHANAMBERKAR AMBERKAR Date: 2024.04.17 15:38:59 +0530

¶29

3 of 3

Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. Merino Industries Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. Merino Industries Ltd. and Anr.

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

Mehak Jayrambhai Nariya vs State of Maharashtra

Ajit Pramod Zha @ Dongari Shot vs State of Maharashtra

Rajsingh Dhankush Gujar Vs State of Maharashtra

Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation Vs Pfizer Limited

Kashimra Yadnesh Pawar vs Yadnesh Govind Pawar

Santosh Pralhad Waghmare vs State of Maharashtra