SWIL LIMITED Vs. ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING GROUP LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 28th February, 2003 passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, rejecting the Civil Miscellaneous Application No.771 of 2001 filed by the petitioner for setting aside the exparte judgement and decree dated 28th January, 2000 passed against it in Summary Suit No.4206 of 1999 filed by the respondent for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,33,368/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 1st August, 1999.

(2.) The respondent herein instituted Summary Suit No.4206 of 1999 against the petitioner Company on 23rd August, 1999 for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,33,368/- with costs and interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 1st August, 1999 till payment thereof. It is the case of the petitioner that no process fee was paid by the respondent for service of summons, but an application was made by respondent to serve the summons of the above suit on the petitioner by substituted service " RPAD which was allowed by the Court. It is further the case of the petitioner that, on 3rd January, 2000, summons was sent to the factory of the petitioner at Jhagadia which was at the relevant time not the registered office of the petitioner, which according to the petitioner was the only place where such service could have been effected. That, the said summons was purportedly accepted by one Shri K.B.S.Rawat, an employee of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the said employee did not inform the petitioner about the receipt of the summons and neither did he ensure appearance in the proceedings, which resulted into an exparte decree being passed by the Ahmedabad City Civil Court, on 28th January, 2000, for an amount of Rs.2,95,670/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 1st May, 1999 till payment thereof.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that there was substantial dispute between the parties on account of failure of the respondent to fulfill its contractual obligations. That, even if the claim of the respondent was accepted, there was an overpayment by the petitioner, as a result of which it had also demanded a refund of Rs.2,30,075/- from the respondent vide letter dated 2nd April, 1999, which had not been produced by the respondent