M/S. Jindal Paper and Plastics Ltd. Vs. M/S. Kedia Distilleries Ltd. and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
the case discussed the effect of refusal on the application filed for leave to defend the suit as per order 37 rule 3(6)(a) of the civil procedure code, 1908 - it was found that the plaintiff was entitled to the judgment to be given in respect of the matter of the case - in this respect the court held that the suit could be decree without any further consideration - - i am satisfied that the suit be decreed as prayed for.ordervikramajit sen, j. 1. the present claim for a decree in the sum of rs. 2,88,99,002 along with pendente lite interest was filed in december, 1997. on 18.12.1997 summons in the prescribed form were ordered, returnable on 22.4.1998. the defendant was also retrained from parting with the possession of 4 d. light industrial estate, bhilai - 490026. eventually, after delay in entering appearance was condoned, applications seeking leave to defend the suit were simultaneously filed by the defendant no. 1 (i.a. 4330/98) and defendants 2 & 3 (i.a. 4331/98). by orders dated 10.8.1998 defendant no. 1 was directed to file copies of letters referred to in its above mentioned application. since these orders were not complied with the plaintiff has filed i.a. 10357/99 under order xi, rule 21 read with order xvii, rule 3 for striking out their defense and for decreeing the suit. despite having been served in this application for the date already fixed, that is 27.10.1999, there was no appearance entered on behalf of defendants on that date. the applications seeking leave to defend were dismissed. arguments were addressed on the suit, and on i.a. 10357/99. 2. order xxxvii, rule 3(6)(a) envisages that if the defendant has made an application for leave to defend and it has been refused, the plaintiff shall be entitled to judgment forthwith. the events in the present case have transpired in that sequence and hence the suit could have been decreed without any further consideration. i have, however, pursued the plaint and the documents filed therewith the satisfy myself that the claim deserves decreeing. 3. a loan agreement dated 5.7.1995 has been filed with the plaint which witnesses that, on the defendant's request a loan of rs. 2 crores was granted to it by the plaintiff. this document discloses that the loan was to carry interest at the rate of 26 per cent per annum with quarterly rests together with 2 per cent per annum penal interest. the defendants have also executed, on 12.7.1995, a receipt and a promissory note which independently to each other and the loan agreement, are sufficient for predicating a suit under order xxxvii. the plaintiff has also filed, as annexure a to the plaint, a detailed statement of accounts showing that the sum of rs. 2,88,99,002/- was due and payable to it by the defendants. i am satisfied that the suit be decreed as prayed for. it is decreed accordingly. decree sheet be drawn up.

Judgment:
ORDER

Vikramajit Sen, J.

1. The present claim for a decree in the sum of Rs. 2,88,99,002 Along with pendente lite interest was filed in December, 1997. On 18.12.1997 summons in the prescribed form were ordered, returnable on 22.4.1998. The Defendant was also retrained from parting with the possession of 4 D. Light Industrial Estate, Bhilai - 490026. Eventually, after delay in entering appearance was condoned, applications seeking Leave to Defend the suit were simultaneously filed by the Defendant No. 1 (I.A. 4330/98) and Defendants 2 & 3 (I.A. 4331/98). By orders dated 10.8.1998 Defendant No. 1 was directed to file copies of letters referred to in its above mentioned application. Since these orders were not complied with the Plaintiff has filed I.A. 10357/99 under Order XI, Rule 21 read with Order XVII, Rule 3 for striking out their defense and for decreeing the suit. Despite having been served in this application for the date already fixed, that is 27.10.1999, there was no appearance entered on behalf of Defendants on that date. The applications seeking Leave to Defend were dismissed. Arguments were addressed on the suit, and on I.A. 10357/99.

2. Order xxxvII, Rule 3(6)(a) envisages that if the Defendant has made an application for leave to defend and it has been refused, the Plaintiff shall be entitled to judgment forthwith. The events in the present case have transpired in that sequence and hence the suit could have been decreed without any further consideration. I have, however, pursued the plaint and the documents filed therewith the satisfy myself that the claim deserves decreeing.

3. A Loan Agreement dated 5.7.1995 has been filed with the plaint which witnesses that, on the Defendant's request a loan of Rs. 2 crores was granted to it by the Plaintiff. This document discloses that the loan was to carry interest at the rate of 26 per cent per annum with quarterly rests together with 2 per cent per annum penal interest. The Defendants have also executed, on 12.7.1995, a Receipt and a Promissory Note which independently to each other and the Loan Agreement, are sufficient for predicating a Suit under Order xxxvII. The Plaintiff has also filed, as Annexure A to the plaint, a detailed Statement of Accounts showing that the sum of Rs. 2,88,99,002/- was due and payable to it by the Defendants.

I am satisfied that the suit be decreed as prayed for. It is decreed accordingly.

Decree sheet be drawn up.