Calcutta High Court
Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs Lynx Machinery & Commercials Ltd on 24 March, 2015
Author: Soumen Sen
Bench: Soumen Sen
ORDER SHEET
GA No.3900 of 2014
CS No.356 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD.
Versus
LYNX MACHINERY & COMMERCIALS LTD.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN
Date : 24th March, 2015.
Appearance:
Ms. Hasnuhana Chakraborty, Adv.
. . .for the plaintiff.
Mr. Sourav Kr. Mukherjee, Adv.
. . .for the defendant.
The Court: This is an application for final judgment under Chapter XIIIA of our High Court Original Side Rules.
The defendant is sub-lessee under the port trust. The defendant under the deed of lease executed with the Port Trust was entitled to create a sub lease and pursuant thereto a sub-lease was created in favour of the plaintiff. Under the said deed of lease the plaintiff was required to deposit a sum of Rs.25,20,000/- as a security deposit which shall be refunded without any interest on the expiry or earlier determination of the said sub-lease.
The case of the plaintiff is that after the determination of the sub lease the defendant has failed to refund the security deposit. Ms. Hasnuhana Chakraborty, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff submits that there is no contemporaneous document prior to the surrender of lease to show that the defendant had any claim against the plaintiff. The learned Counsel has referred to the letters disclosed in the supplementary affidavit as also in the affidavit in opposition to show 2 that the allegations of damage made out in some of the letters of the defendant and in the affidavit in opposition are clearly after-thought and made with an intention to deny the legitimate dues of the plaintiff.
Mr. Sourav Mukherjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant submits that the plaintiff over stayed for few months for which the plaintiff is entitled to damages. Over and above there were extensive damages caused to the premises which would be evident from the report filed by an expert appointed by the defendant. The correspondence exchanged by and between the parties would show that there are allegations made by the defendant that certain constructions have been made by the defendant without knowledge and consent of the defendant and the removal of such structure would cause serious damage to the building. It is also been stated that there are holes in the rooms which required thorough repair.
In a summary judgment the Court is required to be satisfied that the issues raised could be decided on the basis of the affidavit evidence. If a trial is called for and if it appears to the Court that the defendant has been able to make out a defence and is able to raise a triable issue, the Court should not exercise the discretion in favour of the plaintiff in allowing an application for summary judgment. As the nomenclature would suggest, the procedure that would be required to be followed are summary in nature. In view of the disputes disclosed in the pleadings, in my view, it is neither possible nor convenient to decide the issue on the basis of the affidavit evidence. The defence of the defendant cannot also be said to be moonshine.
Under such circumstances, this application fails. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(SOUMEN SEN, J.) sp/b.pal.