M/S Aireff Detox Inc vs Modern Terry Towels
Whether the decision of Trial Court to give ex-parte and judgment favorable for the plaintiff/respondent.
Appellant contends that Mrs. Libiya Cresto was not the employee of the firm but that of the Company, there had to be something further to show that she was in control or management of the partnership business. Merely because she received Registered Post AD would not mean that the service of notice was complete on the partnership firm as envisaged under Order 30 Rule 3 of CPC. The Applicant - present Appellant had brought evidence on record to suggest that Mrs. Libiya Cresto was not an employee of the firm.
The respondent contends that as defendant of the suit filed in Trial Court though it was received by a employee was not responding to the summon sent by the Trial Court so the case should be dismissed under the grounds of ex-parte.
High Court gave a new judgment setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court considering the claims of the appellant.
The following points were stated in the judgment directing the lower court and the appellant:
"(a) The Appellant - Judgment Debtor shall deposit 50% of the principal decreetal sum without interest before the trial court latest by 15.8.2015.
(b) Upon such deposit, it will be open for the Plaintiff to withdraw the same after offering bank guarantee for a matching sum and it will be ensured that it will be valid till disposal of the suit.
(c) Such deposit by the Defendant and withdrawal by the Plaintiff will be subject to outcome of the suit. In case if the suit is dismissed, the Plaintiff shall refund the same along with such interest that the court may direct.
(d) The Defendant shall file a written statement latest by 14.8.2015.
(e) The trial court shall make an attempt to give an expeditious disposal of the suit. Both sides shall cooperate."