Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: Judgment in
S.C.Suit No.734 of 2018 (Exh.11)
MHCC010018472018
Presented on : 05022018
Registered on : 13032018
Decided on : 07112022
Duration : 4 Yr, 9 M, 2 D
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GR. BOMBAY AT MUMBAI
SHORT CAUSE SUIT NO. 734 OF 2018.
Exh.11.
Harish @ Haresh Ratilal Tilak. ]
Aged 59 Years, Indian Inhabitant. ]
Proprietor of M/s. V.H.Corporation ]
residing at Swami Kripa Building, ]
3rd Floor, Room No.30, Ganesh Gali, ]
Lalbhaug, Mumbai – 12. ] ....Plaintiff
V/s
Hiren Nanlal Nimavat. ]
Prop. Of M/s. Sarika Textiles. ]
46, Chandra Bhavan, 1st Floor, Room No.32, ]
Old Hanuman Lane, Mumbai – 02. ]
And also at ]
Shree Ram Mandir, Rajawadi, M.G. Road, ]
Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai 77. ]..Defendant.
Appearance:
Adv. Mr. Sumit Mali i/b M. D. Mali & Co. for the plaintiff.
Defendant Exparte.
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY
Coram : His Honour Judge
Shri. S. B. Pawar.
1
-- 1 of 7 --
Judgment in
S.C.Suit No.734 of 2018 (Exh.11)
CR No. : 59.
Date : 7/11/2022
JUDGMENT
This is suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,95,680/ with
further interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the date of the suit.
Brief facts of the case are as under :
2. Plaintiff and defendant both are involved in business of sale
and purchase of textile goods. Defendant No.1 is the proprietor of M/s.
Sarika Textiles. Both were in textile business at Kalbadevi Road Market,
Mumbai. Therefore, both were knowing each other and were having
friendly relationship. During the course of business, defendant pleaded
to the plaintiff that he was facing financial crisis in his business and
requested for financial help to the plaintiff to make payment of his
outstanding bills to the creditors. He agreed to repay the amount
within six months. On the request of the defendant, plaintiff paid total
sum of Rs.3,95,680/ on behalf of the defendant to M/s. Prime
International on 22.03.2014, 10.04.2014, 19.04.2014 and 29.04.2014
by cheques. Thereafter, defendant again requested the plaintiff to pay
more amount to M/s. Prime International, but plaintiff refused as he
was not in such financial position to pay more amount. Plaintiff time
and again requested defendant to repay the above amount paid by the
plaintiff to M/s. Prime International on behalf of the defendant. But
every time defendant requested some more time to make payment.
Finally, plaintiff issued notice through his advocate on 29.04.2015 and
2
-- 2 of 7 --
Judgment in
S.C.Suit No.734 of 2018 (Exh.11)
called upon the defendant to pay the amount. The defendant neglected
and failed to make the payment. Therefore, suit is filed for recovery of
the above amount with interest.
3. Defendant is duly served with writ of summons, but he
failed to appear in the suit. Therefore, the suit proceeded exparte
against defendant.
4. Following points arise for my determination to which
findings have been recorded for the reasons discussed below.:
Sr. No. Points Findings
1. Whether plaintiff proves that
defendant is liable to pay the
sum of Rs.3,95,680/ to the
plaintiff?
...Yes...
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to
recover the aforesaid amount
with interest? What shall be the
rate of interest?
Yes
At the rate of 6% p.a.
3. What order and decree? Suit is decreed.
REASONS
5. Heard Ld. advocate Mr. Sumit Mali i/b M/s. M. D. Mali &
Co. for the plaintiff.
6. The plaintiff substantiated the suit claim by filing affidavit
in lieu of examinationinchief at Exh.5 and by relying upon the
3
-- 3 of 7 --
Judgment in
S.C.Suit No.734 of 2018 (Exh.11)
documents in the form of bank statement of the plaintiff (Exh.6),
confirmation letter dated 12.02.2015 (Exh.7), copy of notice dated
29.04.2015 (Exh.8), postal receipt and acknowledgment card (Exh.9).
7. In the evidence affidavit, the plaintiff has deposed that
plaintiff and defendant were in the same business and were having
friendly relations. The defendant requested him to pay the amount to
M/s. Prime International from whom the defendant had purchased the
textile goods in the name of his proprietary firm i. e. M/s. Sarika
Textiles. Accordingly, he decided to make financial help and paid M/s.
Prime International, the sum of Rs.72,864/ on 22.03.2014, Rs.93,340/
on 10.04.2014, Rs.1,14,738/, each on 19.04.2014 and 29.04.2014 by
cheques from his proprietary firm’s bank account of M/s. V. H.
Corporation.
8. Bank statement of plaintiff at Exh.6 finds mention of the
above four entries deposed by the plaintiff in evidence affidavit. These
amounts are transferred in the account of M/s. Prime International vide
cheques. The document at Exh.7 is copy of letter issued by the
defendant as proprietor of M/s. Sarika Textiles to one Dineshbhai Vora,
M/s. Prime International on 12.02.2015 wherein it is written that
defendant had purchased the textile goods from the addressee under
various bills, he received the goods and he was responsible to make the
payment of the balance amount. It is further mentioned that on his
behalf, plaintiff made some payment to the addressee which the
defendant has to pay to the plaintiff. It is also mentioned that plaintiff
has no concern with the business and transaction between the
4
-- 4 of 7 --
Judgment in
S.C.Suit No.734 of 2018 (Exh.11)
defendant and M/s. Prime International and the defendant will pay the
balance amount in due course of time. In the above document the
defendant has made categorical statement that on his behalf plaintiff
has made some payment to M/s. Prime International and there is
further admission that he has to pay the said amount to the plaintiff.
Though, specific amount is not mentioned, in absence of any contest,
this admission supports the pleadings and the oral evidence of the
plaintiff.
9. The document at Exh.8 is demand notice dated 29.04.2015
wherein the facts pleaded in the present suit are mentioned. The said
notice is received by the defendant. After receipt of the said notice as
well as the receipt of the suit summons, defendant has not bothered to
put forth his defence on case pleaded by the plaintiff. In these
circumstances, adverse inference needs to be drawn against the
defendant and the case of the plaintiff requires to be accepted as
probable.
10. The transaction took place in the year 2014. The suit is
lodged on 11.09.2017. The confirmation letter Exh.7 is issued by the
defendant acknowledging the liability on 12.02.2015. Therefore, the
suit claim is within the limitation and plaintiff is entitled to recover the
amount from the defendant. Plaintiff is claiming the above amount at
the rate of interest 24% p. a.. The transaction between the parties is not
a commercial transaction. It is a friendly loan transaction, therefore,
rate of interest can be fixed at the rate of 6% p.a.. Thus, the point Nos.
1 & 2 are answered in affirmative and following order is pass:
5
-- 5 of 7 --
Judgment in
S.C.Suit No.734 of 2018 (Exh.11)
ORDER
1. Suit No. 734 of 2018 is decreed with costs.
2. Defendant shall pay an amount of Rs.3,95,680/ with interest
at the rate of 6 % p.a. from the date of the suit till the entire
amount is realised.
3. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
4. Suit No.734 of 2018 is disposed off.
(S.B. Pawar)
Judge,
Dated: 07/11/2022 City Civil and Sessions Court,
Greater Bombay (CR 59)
Declared on : 07.11.2022
Dictated on : 07.11.2022.
Transcribed on : 11.11.2022
Checked on : 11.11.2022
Signed on :
6
-- 6 of 7 --
.. 7..
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
30.11.2022 at 5.30 p.m. Mrs. P.R.Wagh
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (with Court
Room No.)
HHJ SHRI.S.B.Pawar,(C.R.No.59)
Judge.,City Civil & Sessions Court,
Date of pronouncement of /Order 07.11.2022
Order signed by P.O. on 30.11.2022
order uploaded on 30.11.2022
-- 7 of 7 --