Gujarat High Court
Sigachi Industries Limited vs Ratan Travels Proprietor Iqbal Ahmed ... on 10 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9223/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9223 of 2025
==========================================================
SIGACHI INDUSTRIES LIMITED & ORS.
Versus
RATAN TRAVELS PROPRIETOR IQBAL AHMED PATEL
==========================================================
Appearance:
DEEPAK N KHANCHANDANI(7781) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 10/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate, Mr.Deepak N. Khanchandani, for the petitioners.
2. The present application is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
"a) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit this petition.
b) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directions to quash and set aside the order dated 03/03/2025 passed by the Ld. 4th Additional Civil Judge, Bharuch in Summary Suit No. 12 of 2023 at Annexure- A in the interest of justice.
c) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay and suspend implementation, execution & operation of the order dated 03/03/2025 passed by the Ld. 4th Additional Civil Judge, Bharuch in Summary Suit No. 12 of 2023 at Annexure-A in the interest of justice
d) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay the further proceedings of Summary Suit No. 12 of 2023 pending before Ld. 4th Additional Civil Judge, Bharuch in the interest of justice.Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 22:22:43 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9223/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025 undefined
e) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to grant any other and further reliefs as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice."
3. THE SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE
4. The petitioners herein are the original defendants in Summary Suit No. 12 of 2023, filed by the respondent for recovery of the amount due and payable from the petitioners, i.e., Rs.21,44,301/-.
4.1. After appearance was made by the petitioners in the suit, Summons for Judgment was served upon the petitioners and, pursuant to that, a leave to defend application was filed. 4.2. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court, vide its impugned order dated 3rd March 2025, passed an order granting conditional leave to defend the suit, whereby it directed the petitioners to deposit Rs.4,35,000/-. 4.3. As such, the amount which has been directed to be deposited by the petitioners appears to be an undisputed amount as per the terms of the contract, which was so Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 22:22:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9223/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025 undefined observed by the Trial Court in paragraph 7 of the impugned order.
4.4. Nonetheless, the petitioners, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, have preferred the present application.
5. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER 5.1. Learned advocate Mr.Khanchandani would submit that the Trial Court has committed a serious error of law by imposing a condition upon the petitioners-defendants to deposit Rs.4,35,000/- while granting leave to defend in their favour. 5.2. It is submitted that there was poor service provided by the respondent, which resulted into cancellation of the agreement by issuance of notice dated 16.06.2023, and as such, there are serious questions of fact and law involved in the matter, which went unnoticed by the Trial Court while passing the impugned order.
5.3. Learned advocate Mr.Khanchandani would submit that though it has been observed by the Trial Court that the Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 22:22:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9223/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025 undefined agreement does not specify any remarks in the fare or for extra kilometres, still, the respondent-plaintiff has asked for those amounts while making prayer for Rs.21,44,301/-. 5.4. Learned advocate Mr.Khanchandani would submit that considering the totality of the facts and circumstances and the defence set out by the petitioners, unconditional leave could have been granted by the Trial Court.
6. No other and further submission are made.
7. ANALYSIS
8. Having heard Learned advocate Mr.Khanchandani appearing for the petitioners at length and after going through the order impugned in the present application and also the documents which are annexed therewith, it appears that the petitioners had availed the services of the respondent, whereby it provided bus services for the pickup and drop of the staff of petitioner no. 1 - company, thereby, they had some dispute which resulted into termination of such agreement by the petitioners, vide notice dated 16.06.2023. Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 22:22:43 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9223/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025 undefined
9. Nonetheless, it remains undisputed that the respondent had provided its services until such termination and to that extent, it is entitled to receive such amount from the petitioners.
10. The Trial Court has also observed that as per condition No.6 of the agreement executed between the parties on the 25th of July 2018, the respondent is entitled to receive one month's payment for such services in a case of early termination of agreement, which comes to Rs.2,90,000/-, and also for services already provided till 16.06.2023. As per condition no. 4 of such agreement, the petitioner would be liable to pay Rs.1,45,000/- up to such date of termination for services of the petitioner availed by it. Totalling both these amounts would come to Rs.4,35,000/-, which was the condition imposed upon the petitioners-defendants to defend the suit.
11. According to me, when such amount is not disputed by petitioner - defendants then as per second proviso to sub -Rule (5) of Rule 3 of order 37 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, if Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 22:22:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9223/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025 undefined directed by Trial Court to deposit such amount while granting leave, impugned order cannot be said to be erroneous, perverse and contrary to law.
12. CONCLUSION 12.1. In my view, there is no gross error, and much less any jurisdictional error, committed by the Trial Court while imposing such condition upon the defendants. 12.2. It goes without saying that views expressed by Trail Court or this Court are, prima facie, without expressing any final opinion on ultimate merits of suit. 12.3. It is made clear that the suit in question will be decided on its own merits without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove.
13. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any merit in the present application, which requires to be rejected and is hereby REJECTED. No order as to costs.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) MOHD MONIS Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 22:22:43 IST 2025