Bombay High Court

China Merchants BankversusShree Precoated Steels Limited

Decided: 8 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The writ petition is disposed without interference, and the suit is to be decided on its merits by the City Civil Court.

Summary

The High Court of Bombay heard a writ petition filed by China Merchants Bank challenging an order of the City Civil Court. The petitioner argued that the defence raised in the written statement and the progress of the trial warranted interference with the impugned order. The Court observed that, given the nature of the defence and the stage of the trial, it was not appropriate to interfere at this juncture. It directed that the City Civil Court should decide the suit on its merits, noting that the suit had remained undefended for 22 years. All contentions of the parties were left for consideration by the trial judge, and the writ petition was disposed without further order.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court should interfere with the impugned order of the City Civil Court in view of the defence raised and the trial progress
Whether the writ petition can be entertained when the underlying suit has remained undefended for an extended period

Subjects

writ petition
civil procedure
interference
undefended suit
high court
appellate jurisdiction

Judgment

                                                                    39 WP-11741-26.DOC

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                    WRIT PETITION NO. 11741 OF 2026


                   China Merchants Bank                                    ..Petitioner

                           Versus

                   Shree Precoated Steels Ltd. & ors.                   …Respondents


                   Mr. Dhruva Gandhi, a/w Ms. Charmi
                        Shah, i/b Crawford Bayley & Co., for the Petitioner.

                   Mr. Swanand Ganoo, a/w Mr. Dhaval Patil, i/b Ashar & Co.,
                        for Respondent No.1.

                                              CORAM :       N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                              DATE    :     08th September 2026

                   P.C.:

                   1.      Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

                   2.      In view of the nature of the defence raised in the written

                   statement filed on behalf of the petitioner and the progress in

                   the trial, at this stage, this Court is not persuaded to interfere
SAINATH
SANJAY
BODKHE             with the impugned order.
Digitally signed
by SAINATH
SANJAY             3.      However, the learned Judge, City Civil Court, shall decide
BODKHE
Date:
2026.09.10
10:06:19 +0530
                   the suit on its own merits and in accordance with law, without

                   being influenced by any of the observations in the impugned

                   order, especially that the suit has remained undefended for 22

                   years.

                   SAINATH, PA                        1/2
                                                39 WP-11741-26.DOC

4.      All contentions of the parties are kept for consideration by

the learned Judge, City Civil Court.

5.      Subject to the aforesaid clarification, the Writ Petition

stands disposed.



                                         [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




SAINATH, PA                        2/2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…