SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Cal) 1330

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Krishna Rao, J.
Anchor Investments Private Limited – Plaintiff
Versus
TCI Finance Limited – Defendant
IA No: GA/2/2019 (Old No. GA/2406/2019) In CS/133/2019
Decided On : 08-12-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Plaintiff : Mr. Rajarshi Dutta, Adv., Mr. Debargha Basu, Adv., Mr. V.V.V. Sastry, Adv.
For the Defendant : Mr. Aritra Basu, Adv. Mr. Abhijit Sarkar, Adv.

Headnote:

Code of Civil Procedure,1908 - Order XIIIA - Application - Praying for transfer of instant suit - Held, defendant inspite of time fixed by himself had not paid amount along with interest to plaintiff and on had again sent a mail to plaintiff requesting plaintiff for extension of time for payment till month of March - Court had considered documents issued by defendant in favour of plaintiff by admitting that defendant had acknowledged amount of Rupees One Crore with promise to return same with interest @17% per annum and by several documents defendant had admitted that he will return said amount but defendant had return only an amount and had paid interest only twice and no further interest is paid - .S. No. and GA are disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

Krishna Rao, J.

1. The plaintiff has filed the instant application for final Judgment and Decree for a sum of Rs. 83,46,507/-against the defendant under the provisions of Chapter XIIIA of the Original Side Rules of this Court.

2. The plaintiff had initially filed the instant suit before the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction. Subsequent to filing of the suit, the plaintiff had filed an application being GA 5 of 2021 praying for transfer of the instant suit along with the pending applications before this Court (Commercial Division) vide order dt. 19.07.2022, this Court has allowed the prayer (a) to (c) of the Master’s summons.

3. The plaintiff had also filed an application being GA 2198 of 2019 but vide order dt. 26.11.2019, the said application was withdrawn. Vide order dt. 18.08.2020, when the suit was proceeded with the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, the Court had passed an interim order directing the defendant to furnish security for the sum of Rs. 83,46,507/-to the satisfaction of Registrar High Court within a period of two weeks from the date of passing the order. As the defendant has not furnished security in terms of the order dt. 18.08.2020, the Court had passed an order on 15.09.2020 directing the ICICI Bank, Kheraitabad Branch, Hyderabad to freeze account no. 000805002397 only to the extent of Rs. 83,46,507/-standing in the name of TCI Finance Limited and the said freezing shall be to the credit of CS 133 of 2019.

4. In the mean time being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dt. 18.08.2020, the defendant had preferred an appeal being APO No. 85 of 2020 but due to the order dt. 15.09.2020, the appeal preferred by the defendant was become infructuous and accordingly the said appeal was dismissed on 29.09.22020.

5. Inspite of the several directions passed by this Court, the defendant has not filed affidavit-in-opposition with respect of the instant application and accordingly the plaintiff had preferred an application being GA 3 of 2020 praying for placing the instant application (GA 2406 of 2019) for immediate hearing under the heading “Chamber application for final disposal (unopposed)”. The application filed by the plaintiff is disposed of in terms of prayer (c) of the Master’s summons by directing the application being GA 2406 of 2019 to be placed for hearing immediately under the heading “Chamber application for final disposal” and the interim order dt. 15.09.2020 was made absolute.

6. As the defendant has not filed affidavit-in-opposition in the instant case inspite of several opportunities given to the defendant, this Court has taken up for hearing of the instant application.

7. The Counsel for the defendant has raised preliminary objection on the ground that the plaintiff has prayed for judgment and decree in terms of the provisions of Chapter XIIIA of the Rules on the Original Side of this Court but the said rule is not applicable in the Commercial Division. The Counsel for the defendant further submits that after the transfer of the instant suit before this Court, the plaintiff ought to have taken appropriate steps for amendment of the prayer of the instant application but the petitioner has not taken any steps and thus no decree can be passed by this Court under the said Chapter.

8. Counsel for the defendant has relied upon Order XIIIA of the Code of Civil Procedure and submits that in sub-rule 4 the procedure has been prescribed for summary judgment but the plaintiff has not complied with the provisions of Clause 4 of the said order.

9. Counsel for the defendant further submits that in para 46 as well as in prayer (b) of the Master’s summons, the plaintiff has prayed for decree under Chapter XIIIA of the Original Side Rules though the said rules is not applicable before this Court and thus the application filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.

10. Counsel for the plaintiff submi

            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5
            6
            7
            8
            9
            10
            11
            SupremeToday Portrait Ad
            supreme today icon
            logo-black

            An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

            Please visit our Training & Support
            Center or Contact Us for assistance

            qr

            Scan Me!

            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

            whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
            whatsapp-icon Back to top