AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.S. Jhaveri, J.—By way of this petition, the Petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:
(a) This Hon''ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ or such other appropriate order setting aside the order dated 26.11.1999 passed on the summons for judgment in Summary Suit No. 2695/97 granting only conditional leave to the Petitioners to defend the said Summary Suit No. 2695/97 and grant to the Petitioners unconditional leave to defend the suit.
(b) That pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this Special Civil Application operation and implementation of the judgment and order dated 26.11.1999 passed on the summons for judgment in Summary Suit No. 2695/97 and further proceedings in the Summary Suit No. 2695/97 pending in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad be stayed.
(c) and (d) ....
The facts in brief are that the Respondent-original Plaintiff had preferred Summary Suit No. 2695 of 1997 before the Court of learned City Civil Court, Ahmedabad against the Petitioners in respect of the alleged suit transaction. The Respondent-original Plaintiff took out a Summons for judgment and in response to it, the Petitioners filed application for Leave to Defend to the said suit. It is the case of the Petitioners that after the suit was filed and before the Summons for judgment was heard, the Company became a sick industrial company and under the relevant provisions of Act, filed Reference being Reference No. 222/97 before the BIFR. The trial Court at the hearing of the Summons for Judgment, vide order dated 26.11.1999 granted conditional leave to the Petitioners to defend the suit in question. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Petitioners have approached this Court by way of this petition.
Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. The main contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that when the Reference is filed under the relevant provisions of the Act before the BIFR, the suit cannot be proceeded further in view of the provisions of Section 22(1) of the Act. The learned Counsel further contended that when the Respondent had no claim against the Company, Petitioner No. 1 was not liable for any alleged dues of the Company. From the record it transpires that the trial Court without assigning any reasons ex-parte granted conditional leave to defend the suit in question. In view of the law on the subject as declared by this Court, the condition which has been imposed on the Petitioners is contrary to the said law. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial Court is required to be quashed and set aside.
In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 26.11.1999 passed by the learned Chamber Judge, on Summons for judgment in Summary Suit No. 2695/1997 is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the above extent with no order as to costs.