Sonal Apparels Private Limited Vs. Liverpool Retail India Limited - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Judgment:

IN

THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

COMPANY

PETITION No. 114 of 2011

=========================================================

SONAL

APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED - Petitioner(s)

Versus

LIVERPOOL

RETAIL INDIA LIMITED - Respondent(s)

=========================================================

Appearance

:
MR

SOPARKAR SENIOR COUNSEL FOR MRS SWATI SOPARKAR

for

Petitioner:1
MR BM MANGUKIYA for Respondent(s) : 1,
MS BELA A

PRAJAPATI for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR N P CHAUHAN for Respondent(s)

: 1,
=========================================================

Date

: 03/10/2011

ORAL

ORDER

1.0

When the petition was taken up for hearing in first call, learned

advocate for the respondent company was not present. However, request

for pass over was made. The request was accepted and granted.

2.0

Now when the petition is taken up in second call, again learned

advocate for respondent company is not present. Again request for

pass over is made which is not accepted.

3.0

Learned senior counsel Mr. Soparkar for the petitioner has submitted

that the respondent company had placed orders with the petitioner

company and in response to the said orders the petitioner had

manufactured, sold and delivered the goods (ready-made garments) to

the respondent company during the period from 3^rd October

2009 to 5^th December 2009. The petitioner also raised

invoices for the goods supplied, sold and delivered by it. According

to the petitioner the total value of the goods supplied by the

petitioner to the respondent came to the tune of Rs.68,22,074/-.

4.0

It is claimed by the petitioner that the respondent company issued

six cheques aggregating to sum of Rs.63,92,948/- in part discharge of

liability in respect of the goods supplied by the petitioner. The

petitioner has also claimed that until then any dispute regarding the

goods or quality of the material supplied, price or delivery or for

any other service or for any other aspect was never raised by the

respondent company. It is further claimed that for the petitioner on

respective representation of the first three cheques in the month of

October, 2009 the cheques were dishonored. The petitioner has also

claimed that the respondent company promised to make part payment in

near future and that therefore, though the amounts paid through

cheques which were dishonored, company had not initiated any

proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

5.0

At this stage of dictation of the order, Mr. Mangukiya, learned

advocate for respondent company, submitted that within period of 6-8

weeks the respondent company will deposit a sum of Rs.12 lacs.

6.0

Therefore, so as to enable learned advocate for respondent company to

deposit a sum of Rs.12 lacs by 15^th November 2011, the

petition is adjourned. If the respondent company has any sustainable

dispute then it will be considered at the next date of hearing.

Stand over to 18^th November, 2011.

[K.

M. THAKER, J.]

Amit