IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 337 OF 2004 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 337 OF 2004 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 337 OF 2004 IN IN IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 2030 OF 1996 SUMMARY SUIT NO. 2030 OF 1996 SUMMARY SUIT NO. 2030 OF 1996 The Tata Tea Limited ..Plaintiffs versus The Export Credit and Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. ..Defendants Mr. Sandeep Parikh with Mr. A. Siwach i/b. M/s. Amarchand & Mangaldas & Suresh A. Shroff & Co.for the Plaintiffs. Mr. B. Shroff i/b. M/s. M. K. Ambalal & Co. for the Defendants. CORAM : D. G. DESHPANDE,J. CORAM : D. G. DESHPANDE,J. CORAM : D. G. DESHPANDE,J. DATE : 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2004. DATE : 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2004. DATE : 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2004. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard Counsel for the Plaintiffs and Defendants. 2. This notice of motion is taken out by the plaintiffs directing the defendants to pay the amount. The notice of motion is based according to the plaintiffs on a Judgment of the Supreme Court where similar defences raised by the defendants were nullified by the Judgment of the Supreme court in a matter arising from the decision of the Calcutta High Court. Counsel for the defendants rightly urged that when unconditional leave has been granted to them, such a notice of motion is not maintainable otherwise it will frustrate the order in the Summons for Judgment and nullify the order. Counsel for the plaintiffs could not show any provision of law in which such a notice of motion could be taken out. Therefore notice of motion is dismissed. *****