Decided on July 15,2014

Titan Industries Ltd Appellant
Shaz Enterprise Respondents


- (1.) RULE . Mr.B.R.Gupta, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and decided finally.
(2.) THIS petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 23.11.2012, passed by the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, in Summary Suit No.151 of 2011, below the Summons for Judgment, whereby conditional leave to defend has been granted to the petitioner upon payment of 75% of the suit claim.
(3.) THE respondent herein is the original plaintiff who filed Summary Suit No.151 of 2011, in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad, for recovery of Rs.17,83,293/towards leave and licence agreement dated 31.10.2006, entered into between the petitioner and one J.P.Infrastructure Private Limited, whereby the plaintiff, as the sole owner of Shop Nos.109 and 110, situated as Iscon Prozone Mall, Rajkot, admeasuring approximately 1526 square feet super builtup area and 1090 square feet carpet area, situated on the ground floor, allowed the petitioner (original defendant) to use and occupy the licenced premises on leave and licence basis for a period of nine years from the beginning of 1st September, 2006. It is the case of the respondentplaintiff that the defendant has not paid these monthly charges to it without any cause, in spite of several emails being sent to it on 09.04.2009, 22.04.2009, 23.04.2009, 25.04.2009 and 06.05.2009. Hence, the respondentplaintiff preferred the abovementioned suit for recovery of the amount due with 18% interest. In the said suit, the City Civil Court granted leave to defend to the petitioner on condition of payment of 75% of the suit amount vide the impugned order dated 23.11.2012. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition. Mr.Bhargav D.Karia, learned advocate for the petitioner has, at the outset, submitted that the impugned order is an unreasoned one as it does not disclose what were the factors that have weighed with the City Civil Court in imposing the onerous condition of deposit of 75% of the suit claim. It is submitted that a portion of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Michalec Eng. and Mfg. v. Bank Equipment Corporation, 1977 AIR(SC) 577 has been reproduced in the impugned order and it has been stated that the defence raised by the petitioner falls within categories (c) and (e) of paragraph8 of the said judgment. However, there is no discussion regarding the defence put up by the petitioner in relation to the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court has concluded that some triable issues are involved but has proceeded to impose the condition without indicating the factors that have necessitated the imposition of such condition. No reasons have been given in the impugned judgment for the manner in which discretion has been exercised by the Trial Court. Hence, the impugned judgment and order, being devoid of reasons, may be quashed and set aside and the matter be remanded to the City Civil Court for deciding the Summons for Judgment afresh after assigning appropriate reasons.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.