ARIF S. DOCTOR
Antara Housing LLP – Appellant
Versus
M/s. Primeland Constructions – Respondent
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The Court has established that failure by the Defendant to comply with the court's directions under Order XXXVII of the Civil Procedure Code entitles the Plaintiff to a judgment in their favor [judgement_subject].
The Plaintiff filed a Commercial Summary Suit against the Defendant for non-payment of Rs.39,12,43,595, supported by dishonoured post-dated cheques and the Defendant's admission of liability in a letter [fact_of_the_case] (!) (!) .
The Court granted conditional leave to defend the suit, requiring the Defendant to deposit a specified amount within six weeks, which the Defendant failed to do [order_3].
The Court found that the Defendant did not comply with the deposit order, and as a result, the Plaintiff became entitled to a decree under Order XXXVII of the CPC [finding_of_the_court] (!) .
The Court held that, due to the Defendant's failure to deposit the amount within the stipulated period and the absence of any stay from an appeal court, the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree for the recovery of the specified sum along with interest at 12% per annum from the date of dishonour (!) .
The Court decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiff, ordering the Defendant to pay Rs.39,12,43,595 along with interest, and to refund Court Fees if applicable (!) (!) (!) .
The original documents were ordered to be returned to the Plaintiff's Advocate after compliance with all necessary formalities (!) .
These points highlight the Court's reasoning and final decision, emphasizing the importance of compliance with court orders under Order XXXVII for obtaining a judgment in summary proceedings.
JUDGMENT
Arif S. Doctor, J. - Heard learned Counsel.
2. At the outset, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Defendant sought time on the ground that the Defendant had filed an appeal against the order dated 03rd October 2022, by which the Defendant had been granted conditional leave to defend the present Commercial Summary Suit.
3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff vehemently opposed this request and submitted that even on the last occasion the same request had been made. Additionally, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff submitted that an appeal from an order granting conditional leave to defend in a Summons for Judgment filed in a Commercial Summary Suit was not maintainable and placed reliance upon a judgment of this Hon'ble Court in the case of SKIL-Himachal Infrastructure & Tourism Ltd. & Ors. Vs. IL & FS Financial Services Ltd. Commercial Appeal (L) No.95 of 2020 in Summons for Judgment No.83 of 2019 in Commercial Summary Suit No.923 of 2019 with Interim Application No.1801 of 2020 in Commercial Appeal (L) No.95 of 2020. (G. S. Patel & Gauri Godse, JJ.). He invites my attention to Paragraph 52.1, which reads thus :-
'52.1 An ap
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.