V V F (india) Limited vs Glentech Industries pvt.ltd. — 5/2023

Case under Indian Contract Act Section 73,74,75. Status: Issues. Next hearing: 18th June 2026.

Commercial Suit

CNR: MHRG170010772023

Issues

Next Hearing

18th June 2026

e-Filing Number

29-05-2023

Filing Number

778/2023

Filing Date

05-06-2023

Registration No

5/2023

Registration Date

05-06-2023

Court

District and Addl. Sessions Judge, Panvel, Dist., Raigad

Judge

3-District Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Panvel, Dist. Raigad

Acts & Sections

Indian Contract Act Section 73,74,75
Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts (Amendment) Act Section 6,7
Code of Civil Procedure Section 15,18,26,34
Sale of Goods Act Section 57,61

Petitioner(s)

V V F (india) Limited

Adv. MONDE SUNIL RAMCHANDRA

Respondent(s)

Glentech Industries pvt.ltd.

Hearing History

Judge: 3-District Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Panvel, Dist. Raigad

17-04-2026

Issues

12-03-2026

Issues

05-02-2026

Issues

02-01-2026

Issues

19-12-2025

Arguments

Interim Orders

31-07-2025
Order on Exhibit

Summary: Case 5/2023 - VVF (India) Limited v. Glentech Industries Pvt. Ltd. The defendant's application to reject the plaint on jurisdictional grounds was rejected. The court held that the suit falls within its jurisdiction under Section 20(c) of the CPC because part of the transaction occurred at Taloja (within the court's jurisdiction), despite subsequent correspondence suggesting delivery at Kandla. The court found the suit involves recovery of excess payment plus compensation claims, not merely compensation recovery, thus Section 19 does not apply. Costs awarded to the plaintiff. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: Case 5/2023 - VVF (India) Limited v. Glentech Industries Pvt. Ltd. The defendant's application to reject the plaint on jurisdictional grounds was rejected. The court held that the suit falls within its jurisdiction under Section 20(c) of the CPC because part of the transaction occurred at Taloja (within the court's jurisdiction), despite subsequent correspondence suggesting delivery at Kandla. The court found the suit involves recovery of excess payment plus compensation claims, not merely compensation recovery, thus Section 19 does not apply. Costs awarded to the plaintiff. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

District and Addl. Sessions Judge, Panvel, Dist., Raigad All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case