CIPLA LTD Vs. MR.KRISHNA DUSHYANT RANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is one of those matters where the court is anguished with the conduct of the defendant who despite being given repeated opportunity has repeatedly abused the liberty granted by the court. It is rather unfortunate that the defendant, who is probably in his 30's at least from the appearance, if let off to continue with his behaviour, it will erode the faith that the public have on judiciary. The rule of law is premised upon the faith reposed by the people in the justice delivery system. To prevent erosion of that faith contemptuous behaviour in the face of the court needs a strict treatment.

(2.) The plaintiffs, who are the applicants, filed a summary suit against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,25,25,687/ - together with interest @ 18% p.a. on the principal sum of Rs.2,84,04,480/ -. The plaintiffs also took out a summons for judgment.

(3.) The defendant Krishna Dushyant Rana is the sole proprietor of a concern to whom the plaintiffs sold, supplied and delivered goods of a total value of Rs.3,00,18,040/ - under 20 invoices between 3.10.2008 and 1.11.2008. In purported discharge of the liability the defendant issued 20 cheques between 3.12.2008 and 10.1.2009. The cheques were dishonoured on presentation. The invoices were acknowledged by the defendant in token or receipt of the goods. The defendant also admitted his liability vide letter dated 30.1.2009 but sought an indulgence from the plaintiffs to indicate repayment schedule. Despite several notices, the amount due was not paid and the plaintiffs also instituted proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, which is still pending. As could be seen from the order dated 18.3.2011, the hearing of the summons for judgment was adjourned on 16.8.2010 to 16.9.2010 and further adjournment was granted on 14.1.2011. Though an advocate had entered appearance for the defendant, no reply was filed to the summons for judgment. The court by its order dated 18.3.2011 made summons for judgment absolute under Order XXXVII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The suit was also decreed accordingly. This has not been challenged by the defendant at all and the decree has attained finality. The plaintiffs thereafter applied for drawn up decree and the decree was drawn up on 31.10.2012. As no payment was coming forth from the defendant, the plaintiffs took out the present Chamber Summons on 6.9.2013 and served a copy thereof upon the defendant. The counsel for the applicants states that it was served upon the defendant in September -2013 itself which has not been disputed. The reliefs sought in this chamber summons are as under : -