Final Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: SJ No. 10/2020 Unity Vs. Deepak Order 1 of 1
MHCC010008472020
City Civil and Sessions Court, Mazgaon Greater Mumbai
Court Room No. 83 – Summary Court
Summons for Judgment No. 10 / 2020
in
Summary Suit No. 125 / 2021
Unity IT Technology Private Limited,
a Private Limited Company registered under
Companies Act, 1956, having its registered
office at 109, Desai Chambers, 127/129,
Modi Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001.
… Plaintiff.
Versus
Mr. Deepak Suresh Chaddha,
Carrying on business in the name and style
of M/s. Cyborg World, as a sole proprietor,
having his office at Shop No.15, Sunder
Apartments, Opp. Diamond Garden, Sion-
Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai.
… Defendant.
Appearances :
Plaintiff : Adv. Kiran Mohite.
Defendant : Adv. Prasad Rane.
CORAM : PRASAD P. KULKARNI
COURT ROOM NO.83.
DATE : 16.07.2026
***************************************************************
-- 1 of 10 --
SJ No. 10/2020 Unity Vs. Deepak Order 2 of 2
ORDER
(Delivered on this 16th day of July, 2026)
1. Plaintiff moved this Summons for Judgment under Order
XXXVII Rule 3(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (hereinafter
referred as ‘the Code’, for short) with a prayer to allow Summons for
Judgment and decree the suit forthwith. Summons for Judgment is
supported by an affidavit. Defendant filed detailed reply affidavit.
2. Plaintiff filed written notes of arguments vide Exh.06. I have
heard Ld. advocate for plaintiff and Ld. advocate for defendant.
Facts giving rise to the dispute are as follows :
3. Plaintiff is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956. Plaintiff is engaged in business of buying and
selling computers, laptops and accessories. Whereas, defendant is
proprietor of M/s. Cyborg World. Defendant in individual capacity is
one of the director of plaintiff. It is contended that defendant had taken
disadvantage of his post and authority being director and ordered goods
from suppliers/vendors of plaintiff in the name of proprietary concern
and caused loss of Rs.77,38,532/- to plaintiff.
4. So far as, way of working is concerned, plaintiff contended
that directors of plaintiff’s company used to place orders about goods
directly with the suppliers/vendors of plaintiff. Plaintiff further
contended that as per practice followed by plaintiff’s company,
defendant placed several orders of computers, laptops and accessories
-- 2 of 10 --
SJ No. 10/2020 Unity Vs. Deepak Order 3 of 3
directly with various suppliers/vendors of the plaintiff as per
requirement of defendant. As per business practice, said goods were
directly delivered to defendant by the suppliers/vendors.
5. Defendant had ordered several goods through plaintiff being
director and as per order which is reflected in the five invoices which
plaintiff elaborately mentioned in the plaint at page No.3. Amount of
these invoices is a) Rs.15,73,829/-, b) Rs.28,42,028/-, c)
Rs.28,42,028/-, d) Rs.5,82,900/- and e) Rs.19,81,860/-. Sum of these
five invoices is Rs.98,22,645/-.
6. It is contention of plaintiff that defendant ordered several
goods through plaintiff and accordingly plaintiff raised five invoices.
Though goods were received, defendant did not make payment.
Defendant never disputed liability to make payment. Plaintiff received
part payment in respect of five invoices leaving balance amount as
Rs.77,38,532/-.
7. Defendant after receiving the goods, sold it to third parties.
These third parties failed to make payment to defendant and that might
be the reason defendant did not make payment to plaintiff. Defendant
filed criminal case against these third parties who did not pay him. On
such facts, present suit is filed to recover Rs.77,38,532/-. In such a suit,
present Summons for Judgment is moved.
8. Summons for Judgment was duly served on defendant and
defendant filed detailed reply affidavit.
-- 3 of 10 --
SJ No. 10/2020 Unity Vs. Deepak Order 4 of 4
Crux of reply filed by defendant is as follows :
9. Defendant denied its liability to pay any amount to plaintiff.
Defendant contended that in view of arbitration clause, suit is not
tenable in Civil Court. Defendant disputed a fact that it ever received
five invoices. As per defendant, this suit is filed by a person who do not
have authority to file the same. The goods which defendant sold to third
parties, was not paid for. So, defendant filed FIR bearing Crime
No.179/2015 in Chembur Police Station against one Chintan Panchal
and Priti Panchal. Defendant contended that there is no cogent evidence
with plaintiff which could saddle responsibility of claim amount on
defendant. Hence, defendant prayed that unconditional leave to defend
may be granted.
Argument on behalf of plaintiff :
10. Ld. advocate for plaintiff by pointing out five invoices which
are Exh.B-1 to B-5 annexed to plaint submits that these invoices are
sufficient enough to arrive at conclusion that goods were sold, supplied
and delivered to defendant. Ld. advocate for plaintiff further submits
that defendant never disputed a fact that it received the goods. Only
because defendant did not receive money from the third parties,
defendant did not make payment to plaintiff. Defence raised by
defendant is vague and no triable issues are involved in this suit. Hence,
Ld. advocate for plaintiff submits that Summons for Judgment may be
allowed and suit may be decreed.
-- 4 of 10 --
SJ No. 10/2020 Unity Vs. Deepak Order 5 of 5
11. To support his submissions, Ld. advocate for plaintiff relied on
following judgments :
i. IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. vs. Hubtown Ltd., reported in
[2016] 11 S.C.R. 660.
ii. M/s. Sunil Enterprises and Anr. vs. SBI Commercial and
International Bank Ltd.,reported in AIR 1998 Supreme Court
2317.
Argument on behalf of defendant :
12. Per contra, Ld. advocate for defendant vehemently submits
that invoices Exh.B-1 to B-5 are not signed by anyone. These invoices do
not reflect mode of payment, date, terms of delivery and many other
material details. So, these invoices cannot be acted upon. He further
submits that there is no evidence which could say that defendant made
part payment against above invoices.
13. Ld. advocate for defendant further submits that plaintiff has
not placed on record any document which could say that so called
goods were delivered to defendant as plaintiff has not placed on record
any delivery note, acknowledgment, lorry/courier/transport receipt.
Plaintiff has not placed on record any resolution or minutes of meeting
which could say that Mr. Rakesh Shah is authorized to file this suit and
sue defendant. There are so many triable issues involved in this suit.
Hence, conditional leave may be granted to defend the suit.
14. To support his submission, Ld. advocate for defendant relied
-- 5 of 10 --
SJ No. 10/2020 Unity Vs. Deepak Order 6 of 6
on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sabic
Innovative Plastics India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Depsang Corporation & Ors.
reported in 2009 (5) Bom. C. R. 243.
15. Considering rival submissions and nature of dispute, following
points arise for my determination and I have recorded my findings for
the reasons discussed as follows:
Sr. Points Findings
1. Whether there exists sufficient
grounds to allow Summons for
Judgment?
In the negative.
2. Whether defendant is entitled for
leave to defend the suit?
In the affirmative.
3. What order? As per final order.
R E A S O N S
Reasons as to Point Nos. 1 to 3
16. I have gone through documents annexed with plaint. Plaintiff
primarily relied on five invoices which are at Exh.B-1 to Exh.B-5.
Apparent on the face of record and as rightly pointed out by advocate
for defendant, these invoices do not bear signature of anyone. Equally it
is matter of record that these five invoices do not reflect
acknowledgment on part of defendant. Mode/terms of payment, other
references, delivery note date, date, these columns are completely left
blank.
17. If plaintiff want the Court to act upon these invoices, invoices
should contain every material particular with signature of authorized
-- 6 of 10 --
SJ No. 10/2020 Unity Vs. Deepak Order 7 of 7
signatory and there shall be an acknowledgment by defendant or its
authorized person. Plaintiff has not placed on record lorry
receipt/transportation document to show that goods was actually
delivered to defendant. In absence of such a document, Court cannot
assume that goods were sold and delivered.
18. Sum of five invoices is Rs.98,22,645/-. Plaintiff sued
defendant to recover Rs.77,38,532/-. It is contention of plaintiff that
defendant made part payment. However, there is no document on
record which could say that it was defendant who made part payment.
So, without there being evidence, it is not possible to act upon theory of
part payment by defendant.
19. Defendant has filed FIR No.179/2015 against Chintan Panchal
and Priti Panchal. Said fact is not disputed by both the parties.
However, without recording evidence of both the parties, it cannot be
said that, only because third parties did not make payment to
defendant, defendant failed to pay remaining amount to plaintiff. In
order to succeed in the claim, plaintiff shall prove that purchase orders
were placed by defendant, goods were actually delivered to defendant
and defendant failed to make full payment.
20. It is pertinent to note that, plaintiff is a Private Limited
Company, however, there is no document on record which could say
that who is authorized representative of plaintiff. Plaintiff has not
placed on record Minutes of Meeting or Resolution which could say that
Mr. Rakesh Shah is the authorized representative of it. This aspect goes
to the root of dispute and needs detailed scrutiny.
-- 7 of 10 --
SJ No. 10/2020 Unity Vs. Deepak Order 8 of 8
21. Thus, whatever documents are placed on record are not
sufficient at this stage to allow Summons for Judgment. Defendant has
raised several objections which includes so many triable issues as
discussed above. In the case of IDBI Trusteeship (supra), Hon’ble Apex
Court dealt with various contingencies in which leave to defend (either
conditional or unconditional) should be granted and when it should be
refused. Crux of said ruling is that, i) if defence is substantial and there
are triable issues, unconditional leave should be granted. ii) If there are
triable issues, but there is some doubt about genuineness of defence and
when defence is plausible but improbable, then only Court should insist
for security, iii) when there is no defence, Summons for Judgment shall
succeed.
22. Similar principles are propounded in the judgment of Sabic
(supra) relied on by defendant. In the case of M/s. Sunil (supra), it is
observed that defendant has to satisfy Court that he has good defence to
make. Keeping in mind above principles and on going through the
record, this Court is of a considered opinion that defendant has raised
substantial defence. Plaintiff has to prove so many aspects as discussed
herein-above in this order. Unless, trial is conducted on merit, Court
will not be in a position to decide rights and liabilities of the parties.
23. Thus, it is concluded that defence raised by defendant is not
vexatious and frivolous, rather its a substantial defence. Needless to say,
Summons for Judgment deserves to be dismissed. Defendant is entitled
to unconditional leave to defend. Hence, I answer point No.1 in
negative and point No.2 in affirmative. As answer to point No.3,
-- 8 of 10 --
SJ No. 10/2020 Unity Vs. Deepak Order 9 of 9
following order is passed.
ORDER
1. Summons for Judgment No. 10 of 2020 is dismissed.
2. Unconditional leave is granted to defendant with a direction
that defendant shall file written statement on or before next
date without fail.
3. Summons for Judgment is disposed of and it shall form part
of main suit.
4. Order is dictated and pronounced in open Court.
Mumbai
Dated : 16.07.2026.
(Prasad P. Kulkarni)
Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court,
Court Room No.83 - Summary Court,
Mazgaon, Greater Mumbai
-- 9 of 10 --
SJ No. 10/2020 Unity Vs. Deepak Order 10 of 10
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
16.07.2026 16.20 p.m. Manisha Srinath
Stenographer - Grade I
Name of the Judge Prasad. P. Kulkarni
(C.R.NO. 83)
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgment/Order.
16.07.2026
Judgment/order signed by P.O on 16.07.2026
Judgment/order uploaded on 16.07.2026
-- 10 of 10 --