Final Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: Summons for Judgment 22 of 20 ..1.. in Sum Suit No.668/19
MHCC010014982020 Presented on : 05/02/2020
Registered on : 05/02/2020
Decided on : 24/08/2026
Duration : 06 Y: 06 M : 19 D
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT, GREATER MUMBAI AT
MAZGAON
SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.22 OF 2020
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO.668 OF 2019
M/s. Uttam Galva Steels Limited
A Company incorporated under the Provisions of
the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered
office at “Uttam House”, 69 P.D. Mello Road,
Mumbai-400009
]
]
]
]
]
...Plaintiff
Versus
M/s. Kumuda Creative Engineers Pvt. Ltd.
Having address at Plot No.D-2B, Phase-I IDA,
Jeedimetla, Hyderabad, Andrapradesh-500001
]
]
] ...Defendant
Appearance :-
Ld. Adv. Aditya Seetharaman i/b Adv. Vishal Shriyan for plaintiff.
Ld. Adv. Darshit Jain for Defendant.
CORAM : HHJ P. B. LOKHANDE (C.R.No.82)
DATE : 24/08/2026
O R D E R
The plaintiff filed this suit for recovery. In the said suit,
present notice of Summons for Judgment is served upon the Defendant.
Thereafter, the Defendant filed reply to the Summons for Judgment and
leave to defend.
-- 1 of 13 --
Summons for Judgment 22 of 20 ..2.. in Sum Suit No.668/19
2. It is stated that, the plaintiff M/s. Uttam Galva Steels
Limited, A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, having its
registered office at Mumbai. The Defendant company M/s. Kumuda
Creative Engineers Pvt. Ltd. approached the plaintiff for purchase of
CRCA-ADD and CRCA-D steel sheets vide written purchase order dated
14.09.2010 bearing reference No.KCE/10-11/117. The plaintiff
supplied total quantity of 51 tons steel sheets to the Defendant
company by transport at the address of the company, the consignment
received and accepted without any dispute as to quality, quantity or
price in respect of. The invoice bearing No.ODL-039333 dated
03.02.2011 for sum of Rs.5,04,323/-, invoice No.ODL-039334 dated
03.02.2011 for sum of Rs.4,43,321/- and invoice No.ODL-040262
dated 08.02.2011 for sum of Rs.2,22,990/- aggregating Rs.11,70,368/-.
The Defendant company has also issued the “C” from with respect to
the said transaction bearing serial No.CE/AP6934980 dated
14.02.2011, duly signed by authorized signatory of the Defendant
company. The Defendant company made part payment. Thereafter, the
plaintiff called upon the Defendant company to pay the balance dues of
Rs.7,75,003.25/-, in spite of claim, the Defendant company failed to
pay the amount. The plaintiff issued notice through Advocate dated
09.04.2012 to the Defendant company for the balance sum of
Rs.800,003.25/- along-with interest thereon at the commercial rate of
18% p.a. within two weeks.
3. It is further stated that, the Defendant company falsely
denied the claim of the plaintiff vide reply dated 23.04.2012. In reply,
the plaintiff Advocate vide their rejoinder dated 01.10.2012
reconfirmed their fair claim against the Defendant company. The
plaintiff is carrying on business at Mumbai and having registered
-- 2 of 13 --
Summons for Judgment 22 of 20 ..3.. in Sum Suit No.668/19
address at Mumbai, cause of action arose in Mumbai. Therefore, the
suit is filed against the Defendant company claiming the decree of
Rs.10,52,308/- along-with interest on principal amount of
Rs.7,75,003.25/- @18% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till
realization. The Defendant company having no defense whatsoever
against the plaintiff claim. The plaintiff claim is just and payable by the
Defendant company. Therefore, the Summons for Judgment be taken
out by the plaintiff be made absolute with cost and decree may be
passed against the Defendant.
4. The Defendant company resisted the Summons for
Judgment by reply contending that, suit is not maintainable as
summary suit, does not fall within the ambit of order XXXVII of Code of
Civil Procedure. The plaintiff has filed false suit and suppressed the
material facts. This Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the
present suit and Summons for Judgment. The Defendant placed order
of goods in Hyderabad. The goods were to be delivered in Hyderabad.
If the goods were specified quality, then the payment was to be made
by the Defendant in Hyderabad. The cause of action arose in
Hyderabad. The plaintiff has not taken leave of the Court to file present
suit in this Court.
5. It is further contended that, the plaintiff and Defendant
have duly settled the dispute, the Defendant have paid Rs.3,95,638/- to
the plaintiff in full and final settlement. The representative of the
plaintiff approached to the Defendant for amicable settlement, in view
of several discussion, arrived at an understanding i.e. full and final
settlement, the Defendant shall pay Rs.3,95,638/- in installment.
Accordingly the Defendant made payment of Rs.3,95,638/- on different
-- 3 of 13 --
Summons for Judgment 22 of 20 ..4.. in Sum Suit No.668/19
dates from 16.05.2011 to 17.08.2012, which is duly accepted by the
plaintiff. In view of the above, the Defendant did not receive any
further communication from the plaintiff. The Defendant has placed
purchase order on the plaintiff of supply of the certain goods, which
contains various terms and conditions, which were required to comply
by the plaintiff. The plaintiff failed to the comply with the same,
thereby causing damages to the Defendant.
6. In addition to above, relevant facts according to Defendant
more specifically contended in detail para 10 (a) to (g) of reply i.e.
plaintiff was required to material test certificate, delay of goods,
unilaterally dumped the material in open space of the defendant
factory, defendant suffered loss of work order due to delay by the
plaintiff, amicable settlement arrived between the plaintiff and
defendant, etc. Further, to the plaintiff contention detail reply given in
para 12 (a) to (c) i.e. denied the contention of plaint in toto, quantity
less than purchase order delivered thereby causing loss, no terms and
conditions of interest rate,etc. In short, Defendant reply is that, this
Court has no territorial Jurisdiction, summons for judgment be
dismissed and unconditional leave to defend the above suit be granted.
7. In view of above rival contentions, following points arise for
determination and its findings with reasons follows hereinafter:
Sr. No. Points Findings
1 Whether this Court have territorial
Jurisdiction to entertain this suit ?
...In the
affirmative
2 Whether the plaintiff summons for
judgment is liable to be allowed ?
...In the
negative
3 Whether the leave to defend is liable to
be allowed ?
...In the partly
affirmative
-- 4 of 13 --
Summons for Judgment 22 of 20 ..5.. in Sum Suit No.668/19
R E A S O N S
As to Point No.1
8. The Ld. Advocate for defendant vehemently argued that the
the defendant company is situated at Hyderabad, the goods where to
be delivered in Hyderabad, the payment was to be made in Hyderabad,
material part of cause of the action has arisen at Hyderabad, the
plaintiff has not taken leave to file present suit in this Court. Therefore,
this Court is not having territorial jurisdiction.
9. In support of argument relied upon following case law New
Moga Transport and co., Through its Proprietor Krishnlal Jhanwar V/s
United India Insurance co. Ltd. And others. (2004) 4 Supreme Court
Cases 677. I gone through the above cited case law. In the said case
issue was that, the consignment note discloses the expression i.e.
jurisdiction has been specified mentioned at Udaypur Court, wherein
there was clear exclusion of the Courts other than the chosen one and
therefore the suit could not have been entertain at any other place. In
this background, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the intention of
party can be culled out from the use of the expression “only”, “alone”,
“exclusive” and the like with reference to a particular Court. But the
intention to exclusive Court jurisdiction should be reflected in clear,
unambiguous, explicit and specific term. In such case only the accepted
motion on the contract would binding the parties. The first Appellate
Court was justified holding that it was only the Court at Udaypur which
has jurisdiction to try the suit. In the present case in hand, there is no
any such note on the invoice/ consignment agreed upon between the
parties. Therefore, the facts cited case law and the facts of the case in
hand are not the same, in this background, the ratio of the above cited
case law will not be helpful to support the argument of the Defendant
-- 5 of 13 --
Summons for Judgment 22 of 20 ..6.. in Sum Suit No.668/19
Advocate.
10. On the other hand, Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff to counter,
relied upon following case law Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd. And
Another Versus Aviotech Pvt. Ltd. And others 2013 SCC Online Bom
192. I gone through the above cited case law, the facts were that the
transaction of loan between the plaintiff and Defendant, agreement
executed with terms and conditions, wherein the plaintiff sought leave
under section 12 of Letter Patent, to file suit. Repayment of the loan
was to be made through Defendant No.7 in Mumbai. The facts of the
case in hand are in respect of goods supplied and it is disputed the
place of payment. Therefore, the facts cited case law and the facts of
the case in hand are not the same, in this background, the ratio of the
above cited case law will not be helpful to support the argument of the
plaintiff Advocate.
11. After considering the argument on the point of jurisdiction.
I deem necessary to reproduce section 20 of C.P.C. as under.
“Section-20. Other suits to be instituted where defendants
reside or cause of action arises.- Subject to the limitations
aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a court within the
local limits of whose jurisdiction-
(a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there
are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the
suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carriers on
business, or personally works for gain; or
(b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one,
at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and
voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally
works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave
of the court is given, or the defendants who do not reside,
or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as
aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or
-- 6 of 13 --
Summons for Judgment 22 of 20 ..7.. in Sum Suit No.668/19
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
Explanation.- A corporation shall be deemed to carry on
business at its sole or principal office in India or, in respect
of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also
a subordinate office, at such place.”
12. In view of above provision section 20 (a) to (c) the plaintiff
has a choice of forum and cannot be compelled to go to the place of
residence or business of defendant and can file suit at a place where
the cause of action arose. Firstly, section 20 (a) and (b) is in respect of
local limit where jurisdiction is of the defendant carries on business,
having the territorial jurisdiction. Secondly, section 20 (c) is in respect
of the local limit where the cause of action wholly and part arises,
having territorial jurisdiction.
13. The present suit is filed by the plaintiff, specifically pleaded
that, the plaintiff is having registered office at Mumbai and part
payment made by the defendant at Mumbai, therefore, part cause of
action arises within the Mumbai territorial jurisdiction. On the other
hand, the defendant Advocate in say specifically stated that payment
was to be made at Hyderabad, therefore, cause of action does not arose
at Mumbai. However, part payment is made by the defendant to the
plaintiff at Mumbai and the dispute is regarding the part suit claim. If it
is so, in my view, part cause of action arose at Mumbai. Therefore, as
per section 20 (c), this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the affirmative.
As to Point No.2 and 3
14. The above points are taken together for discussion for sake
of convenience. It is vehemently argued by the plaintiff Advocate and
relied upon the documents at Exh.7/1 to 11, i.e. purchase order, lorry
-- 7 of 13 --
Summons for Judgment 22 of 20 ..8.. in Sum Suit No.668/19
receipt, invoices, C-form, extract ledger along-with IT certificate, legal
notice, reply notice etc. In short, the plaintiff case is that, as per
purchase order goods are supplied to the defendant, it is received by
the defendant, also issued form-C, part payment is made. Therefore, no
defense whatsoever in nature to the defendant. The plaintiff is entitled
for Summons for Judgment.
15. On the other hand, the defendant Advocate draw my
attention to the purchase order at Exh.A wherein the defendant has
placed purchase order of total 51 tons CRA-EDD sheets on 14.09.2010,
with specific conditions delivery by 15.10.2010, with note that material
test certificate should be accompanied. However, the plaintiff has failed
to deliver the material within the time, there was delay of three
months, thereby causing loss of work order and income of defendant
due to delay.
16. The Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff vehemently argued that,
the defense of delay is taken after thought. The defendant have
accepted the goods and also issued C-form (Exh.E). The Ld. Advocate
for the defendant vehemently argued that, the issuance of C-form is not
the acceptance of the claim, it is only issued for acknowledge purpose.
In support of argument relied upon following case law Uma Kumar
Versus Reunion Electrical Manufactures Pvt. Ltd. 2006 SCC Online Bom
1291. I have gone through the above cited case law, wherein it is held
and observed that, the form-C certainly indicates the existence of a
jural relationship at some point of time of seller and purchaser, it does
not acknowledge the existence, in praesenti of a debtor-creditor
relationship or the existence of a liability on the date of the
making/execution of the form-C. In view of above ratio of the above
-- 8 of 13 --
Summons for Judgment 22 of 20 ..9.. in Sum Suit No.668/19
cited case law, the argument of the plaintiff Advocate that, issuance of
form-C by the defendant is acceptance of the liability cannot be
accepted.
17. In view of above argument, in short question remains,
whether the plaintiff Summons for Judgment is liable to allow or any
probable defense is made out by the defendant for leave to defend.
18. Hon’ble Apex Court have given guidelines in landmark
judgment of IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited Vs. Hubtown Limited,
(2017) 1 SCC 568. Wherein it is held and observed in para 18-
Accordingly, the principles stated in paragraph 8 of Mechelec’s case will
now stand superseded, given the amendment of O.XXXVII R.3, and the
binding decision of four judges in Milkhiram’s case, as follows:
If the defendant satisfies the Court that he has a
substantial defence, that is, a defence that is likely to
succeed, the plaintiff is not entitled to leave to sign
judgment, and the defendant is entitled to unconditional
leave to defend the suit;
If the defendant raises triable issues indicating that he
has a fair or reasonable defence, although not a
positively good defence, the plaintiff is not entitled to
sign judgment, and the defendant is ordinarily entitled
to unconditional leave to defend;
Even if the defendant raises triable issues, if a doubt is
left with the trial judge about the defendant’s good faith,
or the genuineness of the triable issues, the trial judge
may impose conditions both as to time or mode of trial,
as well as payment into court or furnishing security.
Care must be taken to see that the object of the
provisions to assist expeditious disposal of commercial
causes is not defeated. Care must also be taken to see
-- 9 of 13 --
Summons for Judgment 22 of 20 ..10.. in Sum Suit No.668/19
that such triable issues are not shut out by unduly severe
orders as to deposit or security;
If the Defendant raises a defence which is plausible but
improbable, the trial Judge may impose conditions as to
time or mode of trial, as well as payment into court, or
furnishing security. As such a defence does not raise
triable issues, conditions as to deposit or security or both
can extend to the entire principal sum together with
such interest as the court feels the justice of the case
requires.
If the Defendant has no substantial defence and/or
raises no genuine triable issues, and the court finds such
defence to be frivolous or vexatious, then leave to
defend the suit shall be refused, and the plaintiff is
entitled to judgment forthwith;
If any part of the amount claimed by the plaintiff is
admitted by the defendant to be due from him, leave to
defend the suit, (even if triable issues or a substantial
defence is raised), shall not be granted unless the
amount so admitted to be due is deposited by the
defendant in court.”
19. In view of above guidelines, now it is to be seen, whether
the plaintiff or defendant would succeed as per the pleadings, say and
documents placed on record. Admittedly, the territorial jurisdiction and
form-C acceptance of the liability is already not considered in view of
above discussion.
20. The sum and substances is that, plaintiff supplied goods to
the defendant, there is delay caused for delivery. However, the part
payment is made by the defendant. It is alleged by the defendant in the
say as well as notice that, there was amicable settlement between the
-- 10 of 13 --
Summons for Judgment 22 of 20 ..11.. in Sum Suit No.668/19
plaintiff and defendant. It was an one time settle amount agreed upon
to pay in installment, it is accepted by the plaintiff, the said amount is
reflected in the deduction of the claim amount by the plaintiff. However,
nothing is brought on record to show that, there was settlement
between the plaintiff and defendant, it is the point of dispute.
21. Further, the notice issued by the plaintiff for recovery of the
claim amount along-with interest @18% p.a. from the defendant,
nothing is no record to show that it was agreed upon.
22. Admittedly, there is a delay caused by the plaintiff for
delivery of goods, the reply notice of the defendant to the demand
notice of the plaintiff does reflects the dispute of delay cause, alleged
the damages caused of Rs.6,00,000/-. If these facts are considered, I am
of the view that, the defendant succeed to raise the probable dispute/
defense.
23. However, the plaintiff is claiming Rs.8,00,003.25 in this suit
along-with interest @18% p.a. for the goods supplied to the defendant.
On other hand, defendant in reply notice claiming Rs.6,00,000/- alleged
loss cause due to delay in delivery. It means that, the dispute is
regarding the claim amount and alleged damages caused of
Rs.6,00,000/- between the plaintiff and defendant. In this
circumstances, I am in the view that, there is no dispute regarding the
alleged Rs.2,00,000/- payment towards the claim amount of the
plaintiff by the defendant at this stage. In this background, I am in the
view that, directing the defendant to deposit Rs.2,00,000/- in the Court
and conditional leave to defend can be granted in favour of defendant
would be just and proper. Accordingly, I answer point No.2 in the
-- 11 of 13 --
Summons for Judgment 22 of 20 ..12.. in Sum Suit No.668/19
negative and point No.3 in partly affirmative. Hence, I proceed to pass
the following order:-
ORDER
1. Summons for Judgment No.22 of 2020 in Summary
Civil Suit No.668 of 2019 is hereby disposed as
under :-
2. Leave is granted to the defendant to defend the suit
subject to depositing in this Court a sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Only) within a
period of one month from the date of order and
shall file written statement within 30 days,
thereafter.
3. After depositing the amount, the PLA Section is
directed to invest the same into Fixed Deposit, till
disposal of the suit or till further order.
4. If this conditional order of deposit is not complied
within the stipulated period, as mentioned herein-
above, the plaintiff shall be entitled for an ex-parte
decree against defendant after obtaining a non-
deposit certificate from the PLA Section.
5. Summons for Judgment No.22 of 2020 is disposed
of accordingly.
(Order dictated and pronounced in open Court)
(P. B. Lokhande)
Adhoc Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Mazgaon, Mumbai,
Court No.82
Dated : 24/08/2026
Direct typed on computer : 24/08/2026.
Signed by HHJ on : 24/08/2026.
-- 12 of 13 --
Summons for Judgment 22 of 20 ..13.. in Sum Suit No.668/19
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date Upload Time Shiva J. Ingle
Name of Stenographer24/08/2026 At about 05:30
p.m.
Name of the Judge (With C.R. No.) HHJ Pramod B. Lokhande
(COURT ROOM NO.82)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT / ORDER
24/08/2026
JUDGMENT / ORDER signed by
P.O. on
24/08/2026
JUDGMENT / ORDER uploaded on 24/08/2026
-- 13 of 13 --