1 mp t IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMONS FOR JUDEMENT NO. 395 OF 2007 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 151 OF 2007 Shapoorji Pallonji & Co.Ltd. .. Plaintiff versus Maharashtra State Road Transport Development Corporation Ltd. & Anr. .. Defendants ... Mr.F. Pooniwala i/b M/s.Desai & Diwanji for the plaintiff. Mr.Prashant Chavan i/b Little & Co. for the defendant. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 27th April 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard advocates for the parties. 2. In my view, triable issues arise in the suit for the reasons briefly indicated below 2 3. Construction contract was entered into between plaintiff and defendant no.1 on 11th May and certain sums of money are claimed to be due and payable by the defendant and plaintiff. Defendants have denied the liability to make the payment. Construction contract runs into minute details. Whether the money is due under the contract would be required to be evaluated at trial and cannot be decided in a summary manner at this stage. 4. One of the principal claims of the plaintiff is that prior to the contract, Government of Maharashtra had issued a notification dated 5th January 1998 exempting payment of royalty payable for the minor minerals which were to be extracted and used for the part of the construction work. That exemption was revoked by the Government of Maharashtra vide notification dated 18th October 2001 during the pendency of the construction contract. According to the plaintiff, this resulted into delay as also plaintiff was required to incur expenditure. Whether the defendants at all are liable for payment of this extra money on account of the withdrawal of the exemption notification would require trial. Further more, quantification of the claim arising out of the said withdrawal would require a trial and 3 cannot be decided at this stage. 5. In the circumstances, defendants are granted unconditional leave to defend the suit. Suit is transferred to the list of commercial causes. The defendants shall file written statement within 10 weeks. It is made clear that no opinion is expressed at this stage on whether the defendant no.2 is necessary/proper party to the suit. (D.G. KARNIK, J)