Dattkrupa Textiles v. Hari Trading Company Through Proprietor Sarojdevi H. Daga
28. WP-2054-2020.doc BDP-SPS-TAC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BHARAT DASHARATH PANDIT CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2054 OF 2020 by BHARAT DASHARATH PANDIT Date: 2022.02.21 16:59:11 +0530 DATTKRUPA TEXTILES ....Petitioner V/s DAGA ENTERPRISES PROPRIETOR SHRI HARIKISHAN VALLAB DAS DAGA THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY GOPIKISHAN HARIKISHAN DAGA .....Respondent --- Mr. Nitin B. Patil for the Petitioner.
Mr. Anand S. Patil for the Respondent.
---- CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.
DATE: FEBRUARY 18, 2022 P.C.:- 1] Heard.
2] Perused the impugned order.
3] In a summary suit, liabilities are denied by the Petitioner/Defendant. As such, Petitioner/Defendant was granted conditional leave to defend, subject to furnishing Bank Guarantee of 25% of the suit claim.
4] The order is impugned on the grounds (a) material is not received, (b) transaction is sham and bogus and (c) ' C' Form issued 1/2
28. WP-2054-2020.doc cannot be co-related as there exists some other form of similar nomenclature. The Trial Court has considered the claim/probable defence set up by the Petitioner and has noticed that even though triable issue is spelt out still the Petitioner/Defendant is required to be put to condition. Accordingly, direction is given to the Petitioner/Defendant to furnish Bank Guarantee. 5] The order impugned appears to be just and proper, particularly in the backdrop of the fact that '
C' Form was issued in the name of the Petitioner and same is not contradicted in the proceedings before the Trial Court. That being so, no case for interference is made out. Petition as such fails and stands dismissed.
6] Time to furnish Bank Guarantee is extended by six weeks from today. It is required to be noted that the Court is required to take a note of the fact that already there exists similar type of dispute between the parties which speaks of the Petitioner having business transactions with the Respondent.
( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. ) 2/2