Bombay High Court

ANKIT SALES CORPORATION THR ITS PARTNERSversusAKAI CONSUMERS ELECTRONICS INDIA LTD. THR ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER

Decided: 12 June 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: MILIND N JADHAV

Holding

The trial court's 'no‑cross' and 'evidence closed' orders are quashed and set aside, and the deposited cost of Rs.25,000 is to be refunded with interest.

Summary

The petitioners, who are defendants in a 2006 civil suit for recovery of Rs.18,00,771.72, challenged three orders of the trial court that closed evidence and barred cross‑examination because the defendants and their counsel were absent. They argued that the orders were harsh, especially given the COVID‑19 restrictions, and that they effectively amounted to a non‑suit. The petitioners also sought a refund of Rs.25,000 deposited as cost to obtain an interim stay of the suit. The High Court held that the 'no‑cross' and 'evidence closed' orders were unsustainable and quashed them, directing the trial court to allow cross‑examination. It also ordered the refund of the deposited amount with interest and dismissed the suit proceedings pending further hearing.

Issues considered

Whether the trial court's orders closing evidence and prohibiting cross‑examination due to the parties' absence are legally valid.
Whether such orders constitute a non‑suit and should be set aside.
Whether the deposit of Rs.25,000 as cost for an interim stay is refundable.

Subjects

no cross order
evidence closed
civil procedure
review application
COVID-19 pandemic
stay of suit
refund of costs
non‑suit
writ petition

Judgment

903. CIVIL WP-10390-22.odt

Amberkar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 10390 OF 2022

Ankit Sales Corporation & Ors. .. Petitioners
Versus
Akai Consumers Electronics India Ltd .. Respondent
....................
 Mr. Purushottam G. Chavan, Advocate for Petitioner
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : JUNE 12, 2026
P. C.:

1. Heard Mr. Chavan, learned Advocate for Petitioners - Org.

Defendants.

2. Petitioners before me are Defendants in Special Civil Suit No.

855 of 2006. Writ Petition challenges three orders i.e. order dated

08.01.2020 passed by learned Trial Court directing 'No Cross /

evidence closed' of the Defendants; second order dated 25.02.2020

passed by learned Trial Court in Review Application seeking review of

the order dated 08.01.2020 and third order dated 15.11.2021

rejecting further Application of Defendants seeking review and setting

aside of 'No Cross' order.

3. Briefly stated, Plaintiff Company has filed Special Civil Suit No.

855 of 2006 against Defendants for recovery of amount of Rs.

18,00,771.72 along with interest on account of electronic goods sold,

1 of 7
903. CIVIL WP-10390-22.odt

supplied and delivered by Plaintiff to Defendants from time to time.

Suit was filed in 2006. Defendants filed their written statement and

resisted the Suit principally on the ground that claim of the Plaintiff

Company was false, frivolous and self created evidence and

Defendants have had certain other transactions between the parties

whereby Defendants have placed blank cheques for security purposes

with the Plaintiff which were dishonoured. Defendants have genuine

receipt of the cheques which were given as security deposit which

were dishonoured. In short, Plaintiff has filed money claim for

recovery of money.

4. Mr. Chavan would submit that matter was placed for evidence

and cross-examination of Plaintiff but the Court passed 'No cross' order

due to absence of Defendants and their Advocate. Reason stated in

the order dated 08.01.2020 is that since the Advocate and Defendants

are absent when called out repeatedly, 'No cross' order was passed

against Defendants. Defendants thereafter filed Application below

Exh. 140 immediately for setting aside of 'No cross' order. That

Application was rejected by order dated 25.02.2020. Defendants

being aggrieved filed Review Application for setting aside of 'No cross'

order and 'evidence closed' order by filing Application below Exh. 144.

This Application was also rejected by order dated 15.11.2021. Hence,

the present Petition.

2 of 7
903. CIVIL WP-10390-22.odt

5. Mr Chavan has vehemently argued that there was genuine and

bonafide reason for the Defendants due to circumstances beyond their

control which led to passing of the first order dated 08.01.2020. He

would submit that one of the partners of Defendant No. 1 is a sleeping

/ dormant partner who did not participate in day to day activities and

she has not issued any cheque whatsoever which is claimed to have

been issued by Plaintiff. He would submit that on merits Defendants

have a triable case since this is not a case where Defendants have

accepted the transaction between the parties leading to sell and

delivery of the alleged electronic goods. He would submit that reason

given by learned Trial Court while passing the impugned orders is that

Defendants' approach is casual and negligent. He would submit that

save and except this reason, there is no other reason attributed to the

Defendants. He would submit that due to unavailability of certain

important documents, cross-examination of Plaintiff's witness could

not take place. He would submit that by virtue of the impugned

orders Defendants' valuable right of cross-examination of Plaintiff

stands ousted and defeated and more specifically Defendants are

completely non-suite. He would therefore persuade the Court to allow

the present Petition which is pending since 2022.

6. He would also draw my attention to the order dated

10.10.2022. He would submit that after the Petition was filed on

3 of 7
903. CIVIL WP-10390-22.odt

06.09.2022, the Court passed the aforesaid order directing the

Petitioners to deposit cost of Rs. 25,000/- in the Registry within a

week for grant of stay to the Suit proceedings. He would submit that

Defendants have abided the said order and deposited the said amount

pursuant to which ad-interim stay of the Suit proceedings before the

Trial Court was granted by learned Trial Court. He would place on

record Application dated 12.06.2026 on behalf of Petitioners for recall

of the order dated 10.10.2022 passed by this Court in present Writ

Petition and seek return of the amount of cost deposited as per the

said order along with accrued interest therein. He would submit that

amount of Rs. 25,000/- was directed by Court to be deposited in

order to show bonafides of Defendants in present Petition and it was

not attributed towards any dereliction / negligent on the part of

Petitioners. He would therefore persuade the Court to return the said

amount and pass appropriate directions to the Registry to return the

said amount along with accrued interest if the Court is disposing of the

present Writ Petition.

7. I have heard Mr. Chavan and perused the entire record of the

case before me. Respondent - Org. Plaintiff has chosen not to remain

present. Writ Petition cannot be kept on adjourning. Limited

grievance in the Writ Petition is non-suiting the Defendants in view of

'No-cross' and 'Evidence closed' order passed by learned Trial Court.

4 of 7
903. CIVIL WP-10390-22.odt

Mr. Chavan has placed before me order dated 08.01.2020 which is a

handwritten order on the face of record by learned Trial Judge

directing closing of evidence and no cross order against Defendants

due to absence of their Advocate and after repeatedly calling out of

the matter. This is the only reason given in the said order. Said order,

however, virtually has non-suited the Defendants. In the event if

Defendants are not able to cross-examine the Plaintiff, defence raised

by them in the written statement will get a complete walk over. It is

true that delay and laches affect the disposal of the case, however in a

given case where bonafides are shown by party, the Court will have to

adopt a liberal approach.

8. In the present case, it is seen that immediately after passing of

'No cross' and 'Evidence closed' order on 08.01.2020, Defendants after

having knowledge of the same on 23.01.2020 filed Application below

Exh. 140 for setting aside the said order. Learned Trial Court has

dismissed that Application by order dated 25.02.2020. I have perused

the said order. Further Review Application filed below Exh. 144 has

also been dismissed by order dated 15.11.2021. If these periods are

seen when the impugned orders have been passed, it is seen that the

impugned orders have been passed during the Covid-19 pandemic

period when there were restrictions on movement of persons and

parties as also the Courts were functioning virtually.

5 of 7
903. CIVIL WP-10390-22.odt

9. After considering the submissions made by Mr. Chavan and on

overall consideration of the matter, I am of the clear opinion that all

the three impugned orders are extremely harsh orders which virtually

oust the defence of Defendants and non-suit the Defendants

completely. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, said

orders are not sustainable and are therefore quashed and set aside.

Applications filed below Exhs. 140 and 144 stand allowed. Resultantly

learned Trial Court is directed to permit the Defendants to cross-

examine the witness of Plaintiff in accordance with law.

10. All contentions of Plaintiff as well as Defendants are expressly

kept open without expressing any opinion on merits.

11. Insofar as the Application seeking refund of Rs. 25,000/- along

with accrued interest is concerned, it is seen that on 10.10.2022, this

Court directed the Petitioners to deposit the aforesaid amount for

deferring hearing of the Suit before the Trial Court. Save and except

this noting, there is no other reason given in the said order. Thus, it is

prima facie seen that the amount of deposit / cost was directed by

Court without there being any dereliction on the part of Defendants.

In that view of the matter, I am inclined to accept the request made by

Mr. Chavan and allow the Application dated 12.06.2026 filed today

before me and recall the order of deposit of Rs. 25,000/- directed by

this Court on 10.10.2022. Registry is directed to refund the amount of

6 of 7
903. CIVIL WP-10390-22.odt

Rs. 25,000/- along with accrued interest thereon to the Petitioners -

Org. Defendants who are the Petitioners before me on the basis of

server copy of this order when approached.

12. With the above directions, Writ Petition stands allowed and

disposed.

Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA MOHAN
AMBERKAR
MOHAN Date:
AMBERKAR 2026.06.12
17:05:13
+0530

7 of 7

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…