Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
COMP/114/2011 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
COMPANY
PETITION No. 114 of 2011
=========================================================
SONAL
APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED - Petitioner(s)
Versus
LIVERPOOL
RETAIL INDIA LIMITED - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SOPARKAR SENIOR COUNSEL FOR MRS SWATI SOPARKAR
for
Petitioner:1
MR BM MANGUKIYA for Respondent(s) : 1,
MS BELA A
PRAJAPATI for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR N P CHAUHAN for Respondent(s)
: 1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 03/10/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1.0
When the petition was taken up for hearing in first call, learned
advocate for the respondent company was not present. However, request
for pass over was made. The request was accepted and granted.
2.0
Now when the petition is taken up in second call, again learned
advocate for respondent company is not present. Again request for
pass over is made which is not accepted.
3.0
Learned senior counsel Mr. Soparkar for the petitioner has submitted
that the respondent company had placed orders with the petitioner
company and in response to the said orders the petitioner had
manufactured, sold and delivered the goods (ready-made garments) to
the respondent company during the period from 3rd October
2009 to 5th December 2009. The petitioner also raised
invoices for the goods supplied, sold and delivered by it. According
to the petitioner the total value of the goods supplied by the
petitioner to the respondent came to the tune of Rs.68,22,074/-.
4.0
It is claimed by the petitioner that the respondent company issued
six cheques aggregating to sum of Rs.63,92,948/- in part discharge of
liability in respect of the goods supplied by the petitioner. The
petitioner has also claimed that until then any dispute regarding the
goods or quality of the material supplied, price or delivery or for
any other service or for any other aspect was never raised by the
respondent company. It is further claimed that for the petitioner on
respective representation of the first three cheques in the month of
October, 2009 the cheques were dishonored. The petitioner has also
claimed that the respondent company promised to make part payment in
near future and that therefore, though the amounts paid through
cheques which were dishonored, company had not initiated any
proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.
5.0
At this stage of dictation of the order, Mr. Mangukiya, learned
advocate for respondent company, submitted that within period of 6-8
weeks the respondent company will deposit a sum of Rs.12 lacs.
6.0
Therefore, so as to enable learned advocate for respondent company to
deposit a sum of Rs.12 lacs by 15th November 2011, the
petition is adjourned. If the respondent company has any sustainable
dispute then it will be considered at the next date of hearing.
Stand over to 18th November, 2011.
[K.
M. THAKER, J.]
Amit
Top