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.
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
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
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.
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
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
