Final Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: :1: S.J. No.67/2018 in Summary Suit No.82/2018
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI
SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 67 OF 2018
CNR NO.: MHCC010027352018
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO. 82 OF 2018
Mr. Bakkiyanathan N. Nadar, ]
an Adult, aged about 69 years, ]
Indian Inhabitant, Occ: Business, ]
Carrying on business under the name and ]
Style of M/s. Jayapriya Radios, having address ]
At Balaji Nagar, 90 Feet Road, Dharavi, ]
Mumbai – 400 017. ]...Plaintiff.
Versus
Mr. Shatru Tamanna Kunchnikorve, ]
an Adult, Indian Inhabitant, age 58 years, ]
residing at Room No.A8, Ground Floor, ]
New Sion Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., ]
Sindhi Colony, Sion (West), Mumbai – 400 022. ]...Defendant.
Appearances:
Advocate Mr. Kharat for the Plaintiff.
Advocate Mr. Ramesh Kamble for the defendant.
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
S.P. AGARWAL
(C.R.NO.9)
DATED : 31st JANUARY, 2019.
O R D E R
1. Plaintiff has stated that he is senior citizen. He has further stated
-- 1 of 5 --
:2: S.J. No.67/2018 in Summary Suit No.82/2018
that he and defendant are acquainted with each other since long. He
has further stated that he advanced friendly loan to the defendants in
the month of July 2014 of Rs. 50,00,000/ and defendant returned back
Rs.17,50,000/ in January 2015. He has further stated that defendant
made a promise that he will return back remaining balance friendly
loan amount. Plaintiff has further stated that defendant has handed
over a chque dated 10.02.2015 for remaining sum of Rs.32,50,000/ to
him with promise to honour the same, but it was dishonoured and after
issuance of notice the present suit is filed.
2. Defendant has filed reply to Summons for Judgment and has
taken a defence that he took friendly loan from the plaintiff only of
Rs.17,50,000/ and issued the cheque in question as security to plaintiff
in the year 20102011. According to him, he has given as a security
blank signed cheque to plaintiff. According to defendant, he has repaid
friendly loan of Rs.17,50,000/ and plaintiff told him that the cheque
given as security is misplaced and promised to return the same and
therefore, he waited for plaintiff to return back the same.
3. It appears it is not in dispute that plaintiff and defendant were
acquainted with each other. It is also not disputed that defendant had
taken friendly loan from plaintiff. According to defendant, he had taken
only Rs. 17,50,000/ as loan and that too he had taken in the year
20102011 and issued the cheque in question in the year 20102011
itself as security. According to plaintiff, he has given loan to defendant
in the year 2014 and for balance payment, defendant has issued the
cheque in the year 2015. To support the defence, defendant has
adduced extract of his passbook to show that the cheque in question is
from the chequebook of the year 20102011. It appears such entry in
-- 2 of 5 --
:3: S.J. No.67/2018 in Summary Suit No.82/2018
passbook of other cheque numbers nowhere shows that the cheque in
question is handed over by defendant to plaintiff in the year 20102011.
It merely shows that the chequebook was issued in the year 20102011
to defendant by bank. No documents is adduced by defendant
supporting his claim that he has handed over cheque in question to
plaintiff in the year 20102011.
4. It appears defendant has admitted that the cheque in question is
signed by him. According to defendant, the cheque is given in the year
20102011 and friendly loan is also returned back. It appears according
to plaintiff, after the cheque was bounced he has filed Criminal
complaint in Metropolitan Magistrate's Court at Kurla in the year 2015
against defendant. It appears plaintiff has issued notice to defendant
after dishonoured of cheque. But defendant has failed to reply such
notice claiming defence that he has already repaid the loan amount. It
appears though plaintiff has filed a Criminal complaint against
defendant, defendant has taken no efforts to get back the cheque
alleged to be given as security to plaintiff. According to defendant
believing on words of plaintiff, he did not take any action against
plaintiff for non return of cheque given as security. It is pertinent to see
that plaintiff is a senior person. It is quite remotely possible that a
person issues a blank signed cheque in the year 20102011 but files no
complaint for its misuse or takes any action till date though the plaintiff
had already filed the criminal complaint and suit against defendant.
Therefore, the defence of defendant that the cheque was issued as
security in the year 20102011, is remotely plausible. Therefore, he is
entitled for only conditional leave to defend. Defendant has admitted
that cheque in question bears his signature. Therefore, circumstances of
the case, it will proper to direct defendant to deposit cheque amount in
-- 3 of 5 --
:4: S.J. No.67/2018 in Summary Suit No.82/2018
Court. Hence, following Order:
ORDER
1. Conditional leave to defend the Suit is granted to the defendant on
depositing amount of Rs. 32,50,000/ in the Court within four weeks of
the order.
2. On depositing the aforesaid amount in the Court, the Registrar
(Civil) is directed to deposit said amount in any Nationalised Bank
initially for a period of one year and continued to renew the same for
the like period till further orders.
3. On depositing amount of Rs.32,50,000/ as directed above, the
defendant is directed to file their Written Statement within further
period of 2 weeks.
4. Summons for Judgment No. 67/2018 is disposed off accordingly.
(S.P. AGARWAL)
Judge,
Date: 31.01.2019. City Civil Court,
Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on : 31.01.2019
Transcribed on : 31.01.2019
Signed on : 31.01.2019
-- 4 of 5 --
:5: S.J. No.67/2018 in Summary Suit No.82/2018
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
01.02.2019 At 1:44 p.m. Mr. Subhash Sukhdeo Poul
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
HHJ Ms. S.P. Agarwal
(C.R.NO.09)
Date of pronouncement of
Judgment/Order
31.01.2019
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 31.01.2019
Judgment/Order uploaded on 01.02.2019
-- 5 of 5 --