Il And Fs Services Limited vs Pralay Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3556 Bom

                                                                   17-COMSS579-19+.DOC

                                                                                   Santosh
                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                                          IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION


                                 COMM SUMMARY SUIT NO. 579 OF 2019
                                               WITH
                                SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 76 OF 2019
                                               WITH
                                  LEAVE PETITION (L) NO. 245 OF 2019
                                                 IN
                                 COMM SUMMARY SUIT NO. 579 OF 2019

                      IL and FS Financial Services Ltd.                       ...Plaintiff
                                            Versus
                      Pralay Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & ors.               ...Defendants


SANTOSH
SUBHASH               Ms. Purvi Joshi, a/w Ms. Saloni Shah, i/b DSK Legal, for the
KULKARNI
Digitally signed by
                           Plaintiff.
SANTOSH SUBHASH
KULKARNI
Date: 2022.03.31
18:12:57 +0530
                      Mr. Amrut Joshi, a/w Leona Furtado, i/b Pan India Legal
                           Services, for Defendant nos.2 and 9.


                                                 CORAM:    N. J. JAMADAR, J.

DATED : 31st MARCH, 2022 PC:-

1. Heard the learned Counsels for the parties.

2. Mr. Joshi, the learned Counsel for defendant nos.2 and 9,

invites the attention of the Court to the order dated 4 th January,

2021, in Interim Application No.102 of 2020, whereby this Court

had condoned the delay of 21 days in filing affidavit seeking

leave to defend, subject to payment of costs of Rs.50,000/- each,

to the plaintiff.

17-COMSS579-19+.DOC

3. Mr. Joshi submits that the said order came to be passed

when none appeared for defendant nos.2 and 9, as they were

unaware about the listing of the matter. Therefore, there was

non-compliance of the direction to pay the costs and,

resultantly, the affidavit-in-reply seeking leave to defend has not

been taken on record.

4. Since this Court has condoned the delay and defendant

nos.2 and 9 are willing to pay the costs, as ordered by this

Court, it would be expedient in the interest of justice to allow

defendant nos.2 and 9 now to pay costs, and take the affidavit

seeking leave to defend on record so that the matter can be

adjudicated on merits.

5. Hence, the following order:

:Order:

(i) Time to pay costs of Rs.50,000/-, each, by defendant

nos.2 and 9, stands extended by one week from

today.

(ii) If the costs is paid within the extended period, the

affidavit-in-reply seeking leave to defend be taken on

record.

17-COMSS579-19+.DOC

(iii) The plaintiff is at liberty to file an affidavit-in-

rejoinder, within a period of three weeks of being

served with affidavit seeking leave to defend.

(iv) Summons for Judgment be listed on 28th April, 2022.

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]