Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 13377 (BOM)

Aishwarya Business Corporation Pvt Ltd v. Sai Krishna Eng and Constructions Pvt Ltd

WP/10920/2026 · 2026-09-29

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

26-WP-10920-2026.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10920 OF 2026 M/s. Aishwarya Business Corporation Pvt. Ltd. ..Petitioner Versus Sai Krishna Eng and Constructions Pvt ltd …Respondent Mr. Nishant, a/w Mr. George Thomas, for the Petitioner. Ms. Ankita D Katakdhond, a/w Ms. Bhagyalaxmi Dakuwa, Mr. Nitin S Murkute, for Respondent No. 1. CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 29th SEPTEMBER 2026 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 17th February, 2026 whereby the learned Judge, City Civil Court has granted conditional leave to defend the suit subject to the deposit of a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- by the defendant. 3. Mr. Nishant, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the learned Judge, City Civil Court, has passed the order granting conditional leave to defend the suit on the basis of a purported admission made by the defendant that, an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- is approximately due from the SAINATH, PA 1/2 SAINATH SANJAY BODKHE Digitally signed by SAINATH SANJAY BODKHE Date: 2026.10.01 17:51:42 +0530 26-WP-10920-2026.DOC defendant to the plaintiff, subject to verification of the books of account. However, the defendant was not provided an opportunity to verify the books of account. 4. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. Vs. Hubtown Ltd.1, where the defendant admits part of the claim of the plaintiff, leave to defend cannot be granted without a condition to deposit of the admitted amount even if the defendant raises triable issues. Thus, no fault can be found with the impugned order. Resultantly, this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, does not find any propriety in entertaining this petition. 5. The Writ Petition stands dismissed. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] 1 2017 (1) SCC 568 SAINATH, PA 2/2