V K INDUSTRIES Vs. M P ELECTRICITY BOARD RAMPUR JABALPUR
LAWS(SC)-2002-3-84
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
March 01,2002
V.K.INDUSTRIES
Appellant
VERSUS
MADHYA PRADESH ELECTRICITY BOARD
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
PEDAMALANNA VS. S SUNKAMMA [LAWS(APH)-2003-4-116] [REFERRED TO]JHOLEI BABA AGENCY VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(ORI)-2008-12-2] [REFERRED TO]
SWIL LIMITED VS. ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING GROUP LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2006-7-57] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPU ZACHARIAH VS. XAVIER [LAWS(KER)-2005-8-29] [REFERRED TO]
SUMMER SAND HILL RESTORS AND AYURVEDIC CENTRE VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2009-8-42] [RELIED ON]
KNANDAGOPAL CHETTY VS. J RARTS [LAWS(MAD)-2006-2-184] [REFERRED TO]
P PETER VS. CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA TRUST ASSOCISTION [LAWS(APH)-2008-10-18] [REFERRED TO]
SHAIK AHMED MOHAMMAD VS. DAMODARDAS HARIDAS SONS [LAWS(APH)-2009-4-5] [REFERRED TO]
SHAIK AHMED MOHAMMAD VS. DAMODARDAS HARIDAS SONS [LAWS(APH)-2009-4-5] [REFERRED TO]
NAJMAL BABU AND NOUSHAD, SULTHANA GROUP VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2010-3-140] [REFERRED TO]
SHAILASHREE ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, D.R.T. AND 2 ORS [LAWS(ORI)-2008-11-78] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX VS. KLIP NAIL CARE [LAWS(BOM)-2016-3-77] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL B. BHOSALE VS. KAMAL ORGANIC CHEMICALS [LAWS(BOM)-2016-3-90] [REFERRED TO]
MADASU VENKATA PRASADA RAO VS. MADASU ASHA LATHA [LAWS(APH)-2015-8-92] [REFERRED TO]
VAKATI PRABHAKAR REDDY VS. TENALI MOHAN RAO [LAWS(APH)-2002-6-167] [REFERRED TO]
B R PRASAD and COMPANY VS. ANDHRA CEMENT CO LTD [LAWS(APH)-2004-7-61] [FOLLOWED ON]
POLASANI SUCHARITHA VS. MARGADARSI CHIT FUND LTD [LAWS(APH)-2007-6-56] [REFERRED TO]
K NANDAGOPAL CHETTY VS. J R ARTS [LAWS(MAD)-2006-2-286] [REFERRED TO]
RAMDOSS VS. BALARAMAN [LAWS(MAD)-2007-2-11] [REFERRED TO]
J JESUBALAN VS. P S K FINANCE AND CHIT FUNDS LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2012-7-217] [REFERRED TO]
RAM PYARI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2013-5-207] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH KUMAR VS. DWARKA DAS [LAWS(RAJ)-2013-9-135] [REFERRED TO]
CHEKURI MALAKONDAIAH VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-2013-9-69] [REFERRED TO]
Bata India Ltd. VS. Amiya Sankar Patra [LAWS(ORI)-2008-9-21] [REFERRED TO]
PRADIP KUMAR GHOSH VS. BARUN KUMAR BANERJEE [LAWS(UTN)-2011-4-15] [REFERRED TO]
GMG ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES VS. ISSA GREEN POWER SOLUTION [LAWS(SC)-2015-5-49] [REFERRED TO]
GURRAM ANJESWAR VS. S. NAGALAXMI [LAWS(APH)-2016-8-29] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Shivaraj V. Patil, J. -
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)This appeal is by the defendants in the suit filed for recovery of Rs. 3,84,455.44 with future interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization of the amount. Suit summons were not personally served on the defendants. However, the trial Court, on the basis of newspaper publication, held that service of summons on defendants was sufficient. In the absence of the defendants, the suit was decreed ex parte as prayed for by the plaintiff. On coming to know the ex parte decree, passed against them, the defendants filed a petition under O. IX, R. 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial Court dismissed the said petition. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed Miscellaneous Appeal before the High Court.
(3.)The High Court allowed the miscellaneous appeal and set aside the ex parte decree subject to the terms (i) the defendants shall, within a period of two months, deposit a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with the trial Court, (ii) shall furnish bank guarantee for the remaining sum claimed in the suit within the said period of two months and (iii) the amount so deposited shall be liable to be disbursed in accordance with the final order that may be passed in the suit. It is to be noted that the plaintiff has not challenged the order setting aside ex parte decree.
(2.)This appeal is by the defendants in the suit filed for recovery of Rs. 3,84,455.44 with future interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization of the amount. Suit summons were not personally served on the defendants. However, the trial Court, on the basis of newspaper publication, held that service of summons on defendants was sufficient. In the absence of the defendants, the suit was decreed ex parte as prayed for by the plaintiff. On coming to know the ex parte decree, passed against them, the defendants filed a petition under O. IX, R. 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial Court dismissed the said petition. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed Miscellaneous Appeal before the High Court.
(3.)The High Court allowed the miscellaneous appeal and set aside the ex parte decree subject to the terms (i) the defendants shall, within a period of two months, deposit a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with the trial Court, (ii) shall furnish bank guarantee for the remaining sum claimed in the suit within the said period of two months and (iii) the amount so deposited shall be liable to be disbursed in accordance with the final order that may be passed in the suit. It is to be noted that the plaintiff has not challenged the order setting aside ex parte decree.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.