The State Trading Corporation Of ... vs Mausumi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. And 2 ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5156 Bom

                                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                                  ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                                                 SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 91 OF 2012

                                                                   IN

                                               COMMERCIAL SUMMARY SUIT NO. 6 OF 2011


                        The State Trading Corporation                          ...     Plaintiff
                        of India Ltd.
                                         vs.
                        Masumi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. and 2 Ors.                   ...     Defendants


                        Ms. L. M. Jenkins for the Plaintiff.
                        Mr. Sanjeev Rawat i/b. Mr. D. V. Sutar for the Defendants.


                                                                    CORAM : A. K. MENON, J.

DATED : 8th JUNE, 2022 P.C. :

1. For some strange reason the Summons for Judgment has been pending

for 10 years. Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that the defendants are

responsible for having taken out many applications in the suit. Prima facie

that is for hearing the Summons for Judgment. Summons for judgment is

taken up for hearing forthwith.

2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties it appears that the

suit is filed against a limited company and two of its directors. The cause of

action pleaded in the plaint is on the basis of an agreement dated

Digitally signed by 15th December, 2006 as between the plaintiff and defendant no.1.. That RAJESHWARI RAJESHWARI RAMESH RAMESH PILLAI PILLAI Date:

2022.06.10 21-SJ-91-2012-COMSS-6-2011.odt 1/2 18:15:21 +0530 rrpillai agreement provided for supply of jewellery through the plaintiff to certain

foreign buyers and on basis of which exports orders were to be executed.

Defendant no. 1 had apparently sought Post Shipment Finance Facility from

the plaintiff bankers i.e. Standard Chartered Bank as set out in paragraph 8.

The bank is not party to the suit. These are aspects which are triable.

3. Moreover the suit seeks to combine different causes of action against

defendant no 1 and cause of action against defendant nos. 2 and 3 under

agreement of personal guarantee which according to the learned counsel for

the plaintiff has invoked. In the plaint it is disclosed that the foreign buyers

had not paid the amount due and payable to the plaintiff within time and it

sought extension of time from the plaintiff and the plaintiff has itself agreed

to such extension.

4. In my view there is no question of granting conditional leave or

granting a decree in the set of circumstances that is set out in the plaint. All

the plaintiffs contentions aforesaid raise triable issues. Accordingly, I pass the

following order :

(i) Defendants are granted unconditional leave to defend the suit.

Written statement(s) to be filed within eight weeks from today.

(ii) If written statement(s) are not filed, list the suit for ex-parte decreee.

(iii) Summons for Judgment is disposed in the above terms.

                                                                    (A. K. MENON, J.)

21-SJ-91-2012-COMSS-6-2011.odt                                         2/2
rrpillai