Alphabetics Business Machines ... vs The Zilla Parishad Nashik
2022 Latest Caselaw 3548 Bom

                                                                          25 WP-8919-2009.doc

BDP-SPS-TAC




   BHARAT
   DASHARATH
                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
   PANDIT

   Digitally signed
                                          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
   by BHARAT
   DASHARATH
   PANDIT
   Date: 2022.04.01
   18:27:42 +0530
                                        WRIT PETITION NO. 8919 OF 2009

                      Alphabetics Business Machines
                      Private Limited                                    .... Petitioner.
                                  V/s
                      The Zilla Parishad Nashik                          .... Respondent.

                      Mr. M. L. Patil for the Petitioner.
                      Ms. Chaitrali A. Deshmukh for Respondent No.1.

                                          CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

                                          DATE:    MARCH 31, 2022

                      P.C.:-


                      1]       Heard Mr. Patil, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the

Petitioner at length. According to him, once contract is assigned by

Principal in favour of the Petitioner against the Respondent and

liability inter se between the Principal and Respondent/Defendant is

admitted qua a concluded contract, Court below committed an error

in granting unconditional leave to defend.

2] Ms. Chaitrali Deshmukh, Counsel for the Respondent/Defendant

would support the order by relying on judgment of this Court in the

25 WP-8919-2009.doc

matter of Standard Chartered Bank Vs. India Fintrade Ltd. reported in

2008 SCC OnLine Bom 1076.

3] Appreciated submissions.

4] There is no concluded contract inter se between the

Petitioner/Plaintiff and Respondent/Defendant. Petitioner is claiming

his right to recover the amount through third party in whose favour it

is alleged that there was concluded contract. In that view of the

matter, it cannot be held at this stage that there is admitted debt inter

se between the Petitioner and Respondent. Appropriate support can

be drawn from the judgments of the Apex Court in the matter of IDBI

Trusteeship Services Limited vs. Hubtown Limited reported in (2017)

1 SCC 568 so also in the matter of Jyotsna K. Valia vs. T.S. Parekh and

Co. reported in 2007 (4) MhLJ 517. Even if we consider that there

was implied contract through third party viz PCS Industries Limited in

favour of the Petitioner by the Respondent, such a contract cannot be

formed to be the basis for refusing unconditional leave to defend.

25 WP-8919-2009.doc

5] That being so, no case for interference is made out. Petition as

such fails and same stands dismissed.

6] As prayed by Mr. Patil, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, in case

if motion is made for transferring the suit to Commercial Court, this

Court expects the Trial Court to deal with the same expeditiously.

( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )