LAW Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Order 30 Rule 3 - Case Law

Esheta Lunkad ,
  10 September 2020       Share Bookmark

Court :

Brief :
High Court gave a new judgment setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court considering the claims of the appellant.
Citation :
Appellant: Aireff Detox Inc Respondent: Modern Terry Towels

M/S Aireff Detox Inc vs Modern Terry Towels

Bench:

Akil Kureshi

Issue:

Whether the decision of Trial Court to give ex-parte and judgment favorable for the plaintiff/respondent.

Facts:

  • The Plaintiff and Defendant came into a contract for installation of Effluent Treatment Plant ("ETP") by the defendant.
  • Total Amount of money required by the Defendant was paid by the plaintiff.
  • The ETP did not function properly after it’s installation.
  • On account of such defects in the installation of the ETP, the Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of the entire amount paid to the Defendant for installation of the ETP.
  • The summons of the suit was issued by the trial court.
  • Mrs. Libiya Cresto received the summon sent by Trial Court in the office premises, where the Defendant Firm M/s Aireff Detox Inc. Limited had their office.
  • The Defendant did not respond to the summon sent by the Court.
  • The trial court passed its judgment favorable for the plaintiff as there was no response from the defendant’s side. The court allowed the suit and decreed that the Defendant shall pay the sum of Rs.32,43,181/- along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the suit till realization, as claimed by the plaintiff.

Appellant's Contentions:

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.

Respondent's Contentions:

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.

Judgment:

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."

 

Enroll the Course on CPC by Mr. S.C Virmani:
Click Here

 
"Loved reading this piece by Esheta Lunkad?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"



Published in Constitutional Law
Views : 227




Comments




LCI Learning Hindu Laws


Latest Judgments


More »


Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query