HIMANI ALLOYS LIMITED Vs. TATA STEEL LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against an order dated 22nd february, 2008 passed by the Hon'ble Interlocutory Judge whereby His lordship was pleased to pass a judgment on admission for a sum of Rs. 74,57,074. 50 subject to furnish a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 48 lakhs within a period of six weeks from date in favour of the Registrar, Original side. His Lordship further held that the bank guarantee should otherwise be unconditional and should provide that upon the Court finding that it had no authority to receive the same, the bank would make over the sum of Rs. 48 lakhs on the Registrar's first demand and without any reference to the plaintiff.

(2.) THE appeal was filed by the Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited as well as the Himani Alloys Private Limited. The appeal which was filed by the defendant-Himani on the ground that His Lordship granted liberty to the appellant-defendant that no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court at the time of the trial of the suit. By an order dated 28th January, 2008 passed by His Lordship Sanjib Banerjee, J. in G. A. No. 3386 of 2003 made in C. S. No. 12 of 2003 (The Tata Iron and steel Company Ltd. v. Himani Alloys Ltd.) and thereby entertaining the application of the plaintiff for judgment on admission, His Lordship has erred in passing the said order. According to the appellant-Himani, since this hon'ble Court has no jurisdiction to receive, try and determine the above suit, no judgment upon admission could have been passed by the Hon'ble first Court.

(3.) IT is the case of the appellant-defendant that the said company was incorporated on 13th February, 1997 with the name of Himani Alloys private Limited. Subsequently, the said name was changed to Himani Alloys limited on 27th May, 1997. Admittedly, the defendant supplied diverse materials to the plaintiff and accounts were not settled between the parties. Therefore, it is submitted that on proper accounts being taken, it would be evident that nothing is due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff.