Bombay High Court
Skf India Limited vs Banarasi Lal Madan on 3 October, 2022
Author: N. J. Jamadar
Bench: N. J. Jamadar
1-COMSS5-03.DOC
Santosh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION
COMM SUMMARY SUIT NO. 5 OF 2003
SKF India Ltd. ...Plaintiff
Versus
Banarasi Lal Madan ...Defendant
Mr. Prashant Chavan, a/w Murari Madekar, Sachin Kudalkar,
i/b M/s. Madekar & Co., for the Plaintiff.
Mr. Ankit Rajput, i/b Manoj Bhatt, for the Defendant.
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATED : 3rd OCTOBER, 2022 PC:-
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the plaintiff.
2. With the consent of the parties, following issue no.2 stands deleted.
"2. Whether the defendants prove that as per the arrangement between the plaintiff and the defendants, the defendants' obligation was only to pay for such goods that have been sold by the defendants and the plaintiff had to take back the unsold material?"
3. The issues stand recast with only change in the serial number of the rest of issues. Recast issues are annexed herewith.
1/3
1-COMSS5-03.DOC
4. Perused the Commissioner's report. Especially, the observations below Question No.108 and answer to Question No.109 (pages 384 to 386) of the report.
5. The documents marked as Article "Y-8" and "Y-9" for identification, are now marked as Exhibit Nos.D1/21 and D1/22.
6. Heard the learned Counsel for the plaintiff.
7. List on 11th October, 2022, at 12.30 pm. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] 2/3 1-COMSS5-03.DOC : Recast Issues :
1. Whether the suit is filed within limitation?
2. Whether the defendants prove that the cheques that were given by the defendants to the plaintiff were only accommodation cheques and these cheques were not to be encashed unless instructed by the defendants?
3. In the alternative, whether the defendants prove that as per the contract, these cheques were only used as advance on the understanding that the plaintiff will supply the materials within the agreed period in accordance with the indent placed by the defendants on the plaintiff?
4. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendants have issued the letter dated 5.9.2000 and the same amounts to acknowledgment of liability?
5. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled to a decree in the sum of Rs.1,28,80,060.87/- together with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of the suit until payment/realization?
6. What decree? What Order?
3/3