M/s Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. Arun Kumar Mansingka
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 500 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 1768 of 1999)
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 1768 of 1999)
Petitioner: M/s Larsen & Toubro Ltd.
Respondent: Arun Kumar Mansingka
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 500 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 1768 of 1999)
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 1768 of 1999)
Judges: M. JAGANNADHA RAO & A.P. MISRA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 21, 2000
Head Note:
CIVIL LAW
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Order 37, Rule 3(5) – Leave to defend – Defendant company admitt-ing the dues – Unconditional leave to defend granted – Period of four years lapsed after filing suit. Held that the order is modified that defendant shall deposit the principal/admitted amount in Court, failing which defence shall be struck off. Amount to be invested in Fixed Deposit.
(Para 3 to 5)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Special Leave granted.
2. Heard counsel on both sides. This is an appeal filed against the order dated 3rd November, 1998 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Bombay granting unconditional leave to defend the suit. The said suit was filed by the appellant under Order XXXVII Rule I seeking recovery of a sum of Rs. 3.15 crores with interest on the said amount from the date of suit at the rate of 18% per annum.
3. The appellant-plaintiff relied upon a letter dated 14th July, 1992 wherein the Managing Director of the defendant company confirmed that the said company owed Rs. 3.15 crores to the appellant-plaintiff. It was stated that they were immediately unable to pay the said amount and that they were prepared to provide adequate security for the said amount. The suit was filed on (?).
4. Now four years have lapsed from the date of filing the suit. In the circumstances, we modify the order of the High Court by granting leave to defend subject to the condition that the re-spondent will deposit in the trial court principal amount of Rs. 3.15 crores within three months from today. In default of com-pliance with the order, the defence will stand struck off and the trial court will then proceed in accordance with law.
5. The amount if deposited by the defendant will be invested in a fixed deposit for such period as the trial court may think it fit. In case the money is deposited the same will be permitted to be withdrawn by the appellant.
6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
1. Special Leave granted.
2. Heard counsel on both sides. This is an appeal filed against the order dated 3rd November, 1998 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Bombay granting unconditional leave to defend the suit. The said suit was filed by the appellant under Order XXXVII Rule I seeking recovery of a sum of Rs. 3.15 crores with interest on the said amount from the date of suit at the rate of 18% per annum.
3. The appellant-plaintiff relied upon a letter dated 14th July, 1992 wherein the Managing Director of the defendant company confirmed that the said company owed Rs. 3.15 crores to the appellant-plaintiff. It was stated that they were immediately unable to pay the said amount and that they were prepared to provide adequate security for the said amount. The suit was filed on (?).
4. Now four years have lapsed from the date of filing the suit. In the circumstances, we modify the order of the High Court by granting leave to defend subject to the condition that the re-spondent will deposit in the trial court principal amount of Rs. 3.15 crores within three months from today. In default of com-pliance with the order, the defence will stand struck off and the trial court will then proceed in accordance with law.
5. The amount if deposited by the defendant will be invested in a fixed deposit for such period as the trial court may think it fit. In case the money is deposited the same will be permitted to be withdrawn by the appellant.
6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
