Allowed

Triveni Engineering and Industries Limited v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Jharkhand HC3 May 2019MA/526/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal filed challenging an order declining restoration of a suit dismissed for default. The High Court exercised its discretion in the interest of justice to set aside the impugned order, allowing the suit to be restored subject to payment of costs and a timeline for trial conclusion.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; appeal allowed; suit restored subject to payment of Rs. 5000/-; trial to conclude within six months.

Triveni Engineering and Industries… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

Page 1 of 2 M.A. No. 526 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

M.A. No. 526 of 2018

¶4

Triveni Engineering & Industries Limited, having its Registered Office at Deoband, P.O.-Deoband, P.S. Deoband, District-Saharanpur, U.P. and corporate office at Triveni Engineering & Industries Limited, 8^th Floor, Express Trade Towers, 15-16 Sector 16A, Noida-201301, U.P. through.

¶5

… ... Applicant/Plaintiff-Appellant Versus

¶6

Bharat Coking Coal Limited through its Chairman cum Managing Director, Koila Bhawan, Koila Nagar, PO & PS-Dhanbad, District Dhanbad

¶7

… … Defendant-Respondent

¶8

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶10

-------: For the Appellant M/s. Raj Nandan Sahay, Sr. Advocate & Yashvardhan, Advocate : For the Respondent Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, Respondent

¶11

¶12

Order No. 07 : Dated: 3^rd May, 2019

¶13

Per Sanajy Kumar Dwivedi, J.:

¶14

1. Heard Mr. Raj Nandan Sahay, learned Sr. Advocate for the plaintiffappellant and Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, learned counsel for the defendantrespondent B.C.C.L.

¶15

2. The plaintiff-appellant is aggrieved by order dated 01.12.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-II, Dhanbad in Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 35 of 2016 whereunder the appellant’s application for restoration of Title Suit No. 34/1999 has been rejected.

¶16

3. Trial court vide its order dated 06.08.2016 has taken into account the facts that this appellant has not lead any evidence for 13 years and considering this aspect dismissed the suit for default as this appellant has lost interest in the suit.

¶17

4. The appellant thereafter filed Miscellaneous Case No. 35/2016 under Order IX, Rule9 R/w Section 151 for restoration of Title Suit No. 34/99.

¶18

5. Learned Trial court taking into account all the relevant facts and the conduct of this appellant of not bringing any documents on record, decline to restore the Title Suit No. 34/99. Mr. Sahay, learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that documents submitted in the Title Suit No. 10 of 1996 has not been traced. The documents are now traced and the appellant will be able to proceed with the case if an opportunity be given to the appellant.

¶19

Page 2 of 2 M.A. No. 526 of 2018

¶20

6. Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent B.C.C.L. vehemently opposed the restoration and submitted that the trial court has given ample opportunity to the appellant in spite of that appellant not proceeded in the case. Mr. Mehta further submitted that the Title Suit No. 10/96 has been filed for declaration, permanent injunction and to restrain the defendant from invoking the bank guarantees. The appellant in support of his case has filed two volumes of documents in Title Suit No. 10/96 and on this pretext to be brought on record those documents in Title Suit No. 34/99 the appellant is taking time for leading evidence sine last 17 years till date. It appears that the appellant is not taking interest and somehow he is trying to delay the matter i.e. why he has brought this case twice earlier before this Court and the third time he has come before this Court, after chosen wrong forum for challenging the order dated 01.12.2017.

¶21

7. Be that as it may, this Court in the interest of justice feel that an opportunity should be given to this appellant. Time is allowed to lead evidence in particular frame of time. Thus the order dated 01.12.2017 is set aside.

¶22

8. This appeal is allowed subject to payment of Rs. 5000/- as costs paid by the appellant to the respondent appearing in this appeal. If the cost is paid within two weeks from today the suit shall be restored. The trial court shall proceed with the case on day to day basis and without any unnecessary adjournment on behalf of the parties.

¶23

9. The Trial shall come to an end preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶24

10. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of.

¶25

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶26

Triveni Engineering and Industries Limited v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Triveni Engineering and Industries Limited v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

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

Masomat Sati Devi Vs Union Of India Through The General Manager East Central Railway

Rajinder Kumar Mohal Vs Union Of India Through The General Manager East Central Railway

Divisional Manager Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Leela Devi And Ors.

The Branch Manager Ms Chola Mandalam General Insurance Co. Ltd. Thr Its Asst Manager Abhijeet Mishra Vs Raimin Murmu And Anr.

Ms Associated Cement Companies Ltd. Through Its Logistics Umesh Kumar Tripathy Vs The Union Of India Through The General Manager Eastern Railway

Ms Associated Cement Companies Ltd. through Its Logistics Umesh Kumar Tripathy Vs The Union Of India Through The General Manager Eastern Railway