Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: 1
MHCC010028392018 Presented on : 26-02-2018
Registered on : 26-02-2018
Decided on : 01-10-2021
Duration : 3 years, 7 months, 5 days
EXHIBIT2
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.73 OF 2018
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO. 1416 OF 2017
JAY SHREE INFRASTRUCTURE ]
A partnership firm duly registered ]
under the provisions of the ]
Partnership Act and having address ]
Address: 301, Kamala Hub, ]
N. S. Road No. 1, Corner of ]
Juhu Galli, JVPD Scheme, ]
Vile Parle West, Mumbahi 400049. ].. Plaintiff.
V/s.
BGTA CAUVERY PREMISES ]
COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., ]
Through Administrator, A Society ]
duly registered under the provisions ]
of the Cooperative Societies Act, ]
And having address at Plot No. B4, ]
Wadala Truck Terminal, 18, ]
Mehta Chambers, 2nd Floor, ]
Kalyan street, Mumbai 400009. ]
Road, Andheri (East), ]..Defendant.
Advocate Mr. Lalit Jain for the plaintiff.
Advocate Mr. Bhatia for the Defendant.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI VIDYADHAR B. KAKATKAR
(C.R.No.15).
DATE : 1st OCTOBER, 2021
-- 1 of 20 --
2
JUDGMENT
The Summons for Judgment is taken out by plaintiff in this
summary suit for recovery of money. The suit is instituted for recovery
of amount of Rs. 38,40,923 / along with interest on the amount of
Rs.29,60,431/ at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit
fill realisation of the total decreetal amount.
2. It is the case of plaintiff that, it is carrying out the business
of contractor and developer. Plaintiff and defendant entered into an
agreement on 26/04/2010. The defendant thereby awarded the
contract of constructing the foundation and superstructure for ground
plus three upper storied Truck Terminus Building on the Plot bearing
No. B/4 at Wadala. Plaintiff opened Escrow Account for depositing the
amount of Rs. 75,00,000/ by the defendant. M/s. G.L. Pangam &
Associate was appointed as Architect for supervision of the work and
certification of the bills raised by the plaintiff.
3. Plaintiff has further stated that, it constructed as per the
directions of the architect and raised running bills. They were duly
certified by the architect Which are mentioned as under in the plaint.
4. Plaintiff has further stated that, it sent the running bills to
the defendant and defendant acknowledged the same. The defendant
also paid the amount of Rs. 1,22,00,000/ to the plaintiff. The
description is given in the plaint as under:
Sr.No. Date Cheque No. Amount
Rs.
1 02.03.2011 301013 25,00,000/
-- 2 of 20 --
3
2 12.05.2011 302164 25,00,000/
3 16.07.2011 325152 25,00,000/
4 25.07.2011 325156 12,50,000/
5 29.01.2014 327235 10,00,000/
6 08.05.2017 464707 24,50,000/
TOTAL 1,22,00,000/
5. Plaintiff has further stated that the construction was
delayed due to defendant. Hence, by plaintiff vide the letter dated
15/04/2011 requested the defendant to revise the rates. Accordingly,
defendant informed plaintiff that the rate was increased from
Rs.1,161/ to Rs.1,311/ vide letter dated 30/07/2011.
6. Plaintiff has further stated that in the meantime, the
administrator was appointed and defendant requested the plaintiff to
stop the work. Plaintiff vide its letter dated 12/12/2011 informed the
defendant that it was going to incur huge loss. Thereafter, plaintiff from
time to time demanded the amount to the defendant. Defendant vide its
letter dated 28/07/2012 called upon the Architect to scrutinize, finalise
and approve the bills. However, the Architect refused to certify the bills.
Here, the defendant vide its letter dated 21/01/2013 appointed M/s.
Claim and Contract Solutions to certify the bills submitted by plaintiff. It
also informed the plaintiff that it was not having sufficient funds to pay
the fees of the new Architect. It requested the plaintiff to pay the
charges of the new Architect and to add the same in the bill and will be
paid by the defendant.
7. The new architect informed the plaintiff vide its letter
dated 18/03/2013 that the professional charges were Rs.75,000/.
-- 3 of 20 --
4
Plaintiff was called upon to pay 50% amount in advance and to pay the
remaining at the time delivery of final report. Accordingly, on
18/03/2013 Plaintiff paid Rs.37500/ to the Architect immediately.
8. Plaintiff has further stated that a meeting was held between
the parties on 03/01/2013 and it was decided that the plaintiff will
submit the fresh quotations for the construction work of the defendant.
The Plaintiff issued a revised quotation on 13/01/2014 to the defendant
for the work of godown cum office and also requested the defendant to
release the earlier payment. The defendant on the very day issued the
work order to plaintiff. The demand was raised for the principal amount
of Rs. 54,10,431/ along with interest of Rs. 50,89,813/. Plaintiff again
issued a letter through the Advocate on 08/02/2016 calling upon the
defendant to pay the outstanding. Defendant received the same. The
defendant has admitted the claim of the plaintiff in its general body
meeting. The plaintiff then received the amount of Rs.24,50,000/ on
06/05/2017 by cheque. Plaintiff again called upon the defendant to pay
the outstanding amount of Rs.29,60,431/.
9. Plaintiff states that the amount of Rs.29,60,431/ and
interest amount totaling to Rs.38,40,923/ is due to plaintiff by
defendant along with interest on the principal amount. Plaintiff has
further stated that a notice was issued by his Advocate to defendant on
08/02/2016 and plaintiff issued letter to defendant on 20/04/2017 and
08/05/2017 to the defendant. Those may be treated as notice under
Sec. 164 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. It is further
stated that if the specific notice is found to be required then it may
-- 4 of 20 --
5
kindly be dispensed with. Plaintiff has prayed for the decree
accordingly.
10. The defendant was duly served with the writ of summons.
He appeared in the matter. Thereafter, the plaintiff took out summons
for judgement. It was also duly served upon the defendant. Defendant
appeared and filed his leave to defend.
11. Defendant has come with the case that the claim of plaintiff
is time barred. Defendant has further stated that plaintiff has not
showed a presuit notice under section 164 of the Maharashtra
Cooperative Societies Act on the registrar of the cooperative societies.
Therefore the suit is not maintainable.
12. Defendant has further stated that there are following
triable issues.
1. Does the plaintiff prove that the plaintiff had served
upon the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies the
notice as mandated under section 164 of the
Maharashtra Cooperative Societies act, 1960?
2. Does the plaintiff prove that the present suit is instituted
within the period of limitation?
3. Does the plaintiff prove that it is entitled to recover the
claim amount which is contrary to full and final
settlement agreed upon by the plaintiff in the minutes of
the meeting dated 26/05/2016?
4. Does the plaintiff prove that it is entitled to recover the
interest as claimed in the above suit?
-- 5 of 20 --
6
5. Does the plaintiff prove that it is entitled to file a
summary suit when the amount of claim itself is
disputed?
13. Defendant has further stated that plaintiff has suppressed
the material facts from the court. He has further stated that the charges
of second architect of Rs. 75,000/– were to be borne by the plaintiff.
The earnest money deposit of Rs.5,00,000/ was to be refunded by the
defendant to the plaintiff without interest. As per the settlement dated
26/05/2016, the plaintiff agreed not to claim any other amount of
whatsoever nature and accept the above amount as full and final
settlement of all their claims and dues. Defendant further stated that
society agreed to pay some of Rs. 20,00,000/ to the plaintiff
immediately and the balance amount of Rs. 28,35,431/– was to be paid
after formation of managing committee and on the receipt of dues from
the members of the society.
14. Defendant has further stated that the minutes of the
meeting dated 26/05/2016 were signed by the representative of
plaintiff. Defendant has paid amount of Rs. 25,00,000/ out of the
same on 06/05/2017 and the said amount is accepted by the plaintiff
without any demur or protest.
15. Defendant has further stated that the amount of
Rs.8,80,492/– charged by plaintiff towards the interest is beyond the
scope of the contract. Defendant has raised substantial and plausible
defence and there is a great chance of success. It is further stated that
the appropriate authority had stopped issuance of commencement
-- 6 of 20 --
7
certificate and approval of plans in respect of the suit plot. Therefore,
the administrator had requested the plaintiff to stop the work on the
said plot. It is further stated that the bills were raised by the plaintiff
were not cross verified by the previous architect and hence those bills
were not cleared by the defendant at that relevant time. Those reasons
were beyond the control of the defendant.
16. Defendant has further stated that the claim arises out of the
alleged bills which were raised in the year 2012. The bill dated
06/02/2012 amounting to Rs. 54,24,040/– is barred by the limitation
and therefore the present suit is not maintainable at all.
17. Defendant has further stated that he was required to take
various permissions which caused delay and plaintiff was well aware of
those facts. The annual general body meeting was not held by the
members of the defendant for almost 3½ years from the year 2010.
Therefore, the District Deputy Registrar passed an interim order on
19/05/2015 whereby he directed that if the members failed to form a
committee, then Assistant Registrar would be compelled to proceed
under Sec. 102 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act 1960.
Accordingly, on 13/07/2015, administrator was appointed to look after
the affairs of the plaintiff. Six additional members were appointed in
the month of December 2013. In the meantime, the winding order was
set aside as per order dated 16/05/2016. However, as no committee
was formed, the administrator continued to look after the affairs of the
society. The defendant has stated that the work of plaintiff was not
halted due to the fault of defendant. Defendant has stated that the
claim of plaintiff is contrary to the minutes of the meeting dated
26/05/2016.
-- 7 of 20 --
8
18. For all the above reasons, the defendant has prayed for
dismissal of the suit and in the alternative for unconditional leave to
defend.
19. Plaintiff replied the leave to defend. It is stated that the
defendant has admitted the claim of plaintiff. Plaintiff has claimed to
have served the notice under section 164 of the Maharashtra
Cooperative Societies Act on the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. The
plaintiff has prayed for rejection of live to defend.
20. Considering the pleadings, documents on record and
submissions of both learned advocates, following points arise for my
determination and my findings to them are as stated below for the
following reasons.
Sr.
No.
POINTS FINDINGS
1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the
Summons for Judgment as prayed for?
In the
Negative
2 Whether the defendant is entitled to the
leave to defend the suit?
In the
Affirmative
(Conditional Leave)
3 What Order ? As per final order
-- 8 of 20 --
9
R E A S O N S
AS TO POINT NOS.1 to 3:
21. As all 3 points are related to each other, they are discussed
at once to avoid the repetition.
22. Plaintiff has produced on record a copy of agreement dated
26/04/2010 between plaintiff and defendant. It states that plaintiff
was to deposit Rs. 5,00,00/ with the dependent as security deposit.
There is a clause of depositing the amount of Rs. 75,00,000/ in the
Escrow account by the defendant and it is agreed that in the case of
cancellation of contract the amount of Rs. 75,00,000/ shall be paid to
the plaintiff. Plaintiff has produced on record a letter issued by
defendant on 29/04/2010 for starting the construction. Plaintiff issued
a letter to the Union Bank of India on 03/06/2010 for opening escrow
account. The defendant issued letter to the Union Bank of India on
03/06/2010 along with 3 pay orders of Rs. 25 lakh each. Plaintiff has
produced on record the copies of running bills which were raised by it
to the defendant, description of which is provided in the plaint.
23. Plaintiff has produced on record a letter issued by it on
15/04/2011 to defendant for increase in the rate of construction.
Defendant considered the said demand and increased the rate from Rs.
1161/ per square feet to Rs. 1311/ per square feet. The letter to that
effect was issued on 30/07/2011. It appears from the pleadings that
there is no dispute regarding the fact that the work was halted as per
the instructions of the defendant to the plaintiff. There is no dispute
regarding the fact that the administrator was appointed to look after the
-- 9 of 20 --
10
affairs of the defendant society in the meantime.
24. Plaintiff has produced on record copies of his letters to the
defendant demanding his payment from time to time. Plaintiff issued
letters to the previous Architect regarding certifying the bills.
25. The plaintiff has produced on record a letter issued by
defendant to the M/s. Claims and Contact Solutions appointing them as
architects for certifying the bills of plaintiff. It is stated that the
previous architect has refused to certify the bills. Another letter issued
by defendant to plaintiff dated 21/01/2013 is produced on record
which shows that defendant wrote to the plaintiff that as defendant
society was not having funds, the charges of new architect may be paid
by the plaintiff and he may add the amount in the outstanding bail
which will be paid by the society to plaintiff. The new architect wrote a
letter to plaintiff on 18/03/2013 thereby asking for consent of plaintiff
to pay the amount of Rs. 37,500/– towards 50% amount of the total
architect charges. Plaintiff paid that amount by cheque on 18/03/2018.
26. Plaintiff has produced on record a letter dated 04/01/2013
to the defendant stating therein that the revised quotation was annexed
to the letter as per the meeting held on 03/01/2014. This letter shows
that there was some discussion between the parties regarding the
ongoing contract and for some or the other reason the earlier contract
was cancelled and the plaintiff was required to submit new quotation to
the defendant.
27. Plaintiff has filed a copy of an email sent by him on
14/01/2016 to the defendant stating there in the description of his
outstanding amount. Again, plaintiff has filed on record a letter dated
-- 10 of 20 --
11
17/01/2017 written to defendant demanding the outstanding amount
of Rs. 54,10,431/– along with accrued interest of Rs. 50,89,813/– till
31/12/2016. The letter was sent to the members of the defendant and
to the administrator of the society. Plaintiff has produced on record a
copy of email sent to the defendant on 17/01/2017 with the same
contests. Lastly plaintiff has produced on record a copy of advocate
notice issued to defendant on 08/02/2016 demanding the amount of
Rs. 54,10,431/– along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. A
copy of that notice was addressed to the administrator of the defendant
who himself was a Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies.
28. The most important document produced by the plaintiff on
record is minutes of the meeting held on 19/04/2013. The resolution
No. 4 states that, the bill of M/s Jayshree Infrastructure of Rs.
54,24,040/ is verified by Claim and Contract Solutions and certified
after deduction of amount, it is finalised at Rs.41,38,159/–(without
interest) including balance payment of plinth work.
29. The fees of Rs. 75,000/ paid to M/s. Claim and Contract
Solutions by M/s Jayshree Infrastructure will be repaid by society and
interest on the pending bill of Rs. 41,38,159/– will be payable only on
restart of construction work with subsequent bill.
30. Another important document filed by plaintiff on record is
the minutes of the meeting dated 18/05/2016. It appears that the
administrator was also present for the said meeting and the legal notice
issued by the plaintiff to defendant on 08/02/2016 was also discussed
in the meeting. The minutes state as under,
-- 11 of 20 --
12
after discussion, claim and counterclaim it was unanimously decided as
under:
1. Total outstanding of Jayshree is established as under:
Bill dated Amount
21.02.2011 48,95,807.50
09.03.2011 27,28,647.50
06.03.2011 28,92,610.00
1,05,17,065.00
Less : Paid 87,50,000.00 17,67,065.00 App. By Sp.GM
06.02.2012 23,71,094.00 23,71,094.00 App. By Sp.GM
31.05.2015 16,97,272.00
Less: Advance 10,00,000.00 6,97,272.00 App. Now
48,35,431.00
(Rupees Forty Eight Lacs Thirty Five Thousand Four Hundred Thirty one only
2.Valuation charges of Rs. 75,000/– will not be reimbursed by
us and will be borne by the contractor.
3. E. M. D. Of Rs. 5 lakh will be refunded without interest by
the society to the contractor.
4. Contractor will not claim any other amount of whatsoever
nature and accept the above amount as full and final settlement
of all their claims and dues.
5. Society is agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 20 lakh (Rs. Twenty Lac)
to the contractor immediately and balance of Rs. 2,835,431/–
will be paid after formation of the managing committee and on
the receipt of dues from the members of the society.
-- 12 of 20 --
13
31. The minutes of the meeting dated 15/04/2017 are filed on
record by the plaintiff. The subject of payment to the plaintiff was
discussed in the said meeting and it was resolved that outstanding
payment of the contractor as per balance sheet as on 31/03/2016 be
and is hereby released as and when there is surplus of funds with the
society. Members give their approval to the release of Rs.25,00,000/ to
the plaintiff. It is the case of plaintiff that he received the amount of
Rs.24,50,000/– from the defendant after these meetings. Initially, there
was dispute regarding the short amount of Rs. 50,000/–. However,
later on it is clarified and admitted by the plaintiff that the amount of
Rs. 50,000/– was deducted by the defendant towards the T. D. S.
Plaintiff has filed particulars of claim at page No. 113 in which he had
shown the interest at the rate of 18% from 27/05/2016 to 07/05/2016
at the rate of 18% per annum amounting to Rs. 8,80,492/–.
32. It is important to note that the copies of minutes of the
meeting are filed by plaintiff on record. These are the documents of
defendant. At this stage defendant has not denied that such meetings
were held and such resolutions were passed. Therefore, for the purpose
of deciding summons to judgement and leave to defend the suit, the
court can read those minutes as they are. The minutes dated
26/05/2016 make it very clear that the defendant acknowledged that
the amount of Rs. 48,35,431/– was due from defendant to plaintiff. In
addition to that defendant was to return amount of earnest money that
is Rs.5,00,000/. One of the clause of resolution states that the amount
of new architect fees that is Rs. 75,000/– was to be borne by the
plaintiff. Learned advocate for plaintiff submitted that this clause was
never admitted by the plaintiff. However, those minutes bear the
-- 13 of 20 --
14
signatures of the representatives of plaintiff also. In the circumstances
it has become the matter of evidence that whether the charges of Rs.
75,000/– were admitted to be paid by the plaintiff or not and it cannot
be decided without recording the evidence of both the parties.
33. An advocate for defendant relied upon judgement in the
case of IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd Vs Hubtown Ltd decided by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1086 of 2016. It is
held that,”
Accordingly, the principles stated in para 8 of
Mechelec case [Mechelec Engineers & Manufacturers
v. Basic Equipment Corpn., (1976) 4 SCC 687] will
now stand superseded, given the amendment of
Order 37 Rule 3 and the binding decision of four
Judges in Milkhiram case [Milkhiram (India) (P) Ltd.
v. Chamanlal Bros., AIR 1965 SC 1698 : (1966) 68
Bom LR 36] , as follows:
17.1. 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.
17.2. 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.
-- 14 of 20 --
15
17.3. 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 that such
triable issues are not shut out by unduly severe
orders as to deposit or security.
17.4. 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.
17.5. 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.
17.6. 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
-- 15 of 20 --
16
granted unless the amount so admitted to be due is
deposited by the defendant in court.
34. In the light of observations of Hon'ble Lordships in the
present matter it is now to be seen whether the defendant is entitled to
the leave to defend in the present matter It is admitted position that the
defendant after holding this meeting agreed to pay the amount of
Rs.25,00,000/ (Rs.24,50,000/– + Rs.50,000/– towards TDS) to the
plaintiff. Therefore, if the said amount is deducted from the total
aggregate amount by the defendant, the balance remains is that of Rs.
29,10,431/–. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the interest is another
question which needs to be determined by the court at the final hearing
of the suit. Admittedly, there is no express term of interest in the
agreement executed between the parties. Therefore, this also becomes
the matter of evidence.
35. Another important aspect of the matter is that whether the
notice under section 164 of the Cooperative Societies Act is required in
the present matter. It is the case of plaintiff that the Deputy Registrar of
the cooperative societies was himself the administrator of the
defendant. It is further submitted that the legal notice which was sent
to the defendant before the institution of the present suit was issued by
the plaintiff. Copy of the same was sent to the administrator also.
Learned advocate for plaintiff submitted that this notice can be treated
as a notice under section 164 of the Cooperative Societies Act.
However, it is difficult to accept this submission because the notice was
not addressed to the administrator.
-- 16 of 20 --
17
36. Admittedly, plaintiff has written certain letters to the
administrator demanding the amount due to him from the defendant.
However, at this stage they cannot be accepted as notice under section
164 of the Cooperative Societies Act as all the contents which are
required to be mentioned in the notice are not appearing in the letter.
37. The Court also has to see whether the subject matter of the
suit is touching to the business of the society. If it is found so, then only
it will be mandatory on the part of plaintiff to issue such a notice. If it
is not found so then the plaintiff may not issue such a notice. For this
aspect also, it is necessary to record the evidence of the parties. In my
considered opinion these are the triable issues made out by the
defendant in the present matter.
38. The defendant has come out with the case that two of the
running bills submitted by the plaintiff for payment are not within
limitation. In reply learned advocate for plaintiff submitted that the
running bills are the part of the aggregate bill which the plaintiff is
going to rates after completion of the work. The bills were issued in the
year 2012 – 2013. If we consider these bills individually, they appear to
be out of limitation. However, it is necessary to consider that these bills
are a part of a continuous transaction between plaintiff and defendant.
Therefore, prime facie it cannot be inferred that, these bills are barred
by limitation. Limitation is a mixed question of law and facts and
therefore it can be decided only after recording evidence of the parties.
This is one more triable issue in the present matter.
39. It is submitted by learned advocate for defendant that
though the amount was admitted by the defendant in the meeting dated
-- 17 of 20 --
18
26/05/2016, there was a rider in the clause No. 5 of the resolution
which states that the balance of Rs. 28,35,431/– will be paid after
formation of the managing committee and on receipt of dues from the
members of the society. He further submitted that due to the pandemic
the formation of committee could not take place. However, it is
important to note that the formation of managing committee and
receipt of dues from the members of the society is clearly the look out of
the defendant and plaintiff has nothing to do with the same. These
submissions are difficult to accept as these reasons are beyond the
control of the plaintiff and he cannot be allowed to suffer only because
the managing committee is not constituted by the defendant or the
members of the defendant failed to pay the dues of the society.
Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that the defendant is entitled
to the leave to defend. However, in view of the provisions of order 37
of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is necessary to direct the defendant to
deposit the admitted amount in the court. As per the minutes of the
meeting dated 26/05/2016, the admitted amount by the defendant is
Rs. 2,835,431/–.
40. Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that plaintiff is
not entitled to the judgement at this stage. Defendant has made out
triable issues in the matter. Therefore, he is entitled to defend the suit
by filing the written statement. However, as he has admitted part of the
claim of the plaintiff, he needs to deposit the same in the court.
Accordingly, I answer point No. 1 in the negative, point No. 2 in the
affirmative and in answer to point No. 3 I proceed to pass following
order.
-- 18 of 20 --
19
O R D E R
1. Summons to Judgment is dismissed.
2. Leave to defend is granted to defendant to
subject to depositing the amount of Rs.28,35,431/
in the Court with in 60 days from the date of this
order.
3. If the defendant deposits the aforesaid amount of
Rs.28,35,431/ in the Court, then the registrar is
directed to deposit the same in any Nationalized
Bank for the period of one year and the said period
of one year may be extended from time to time till
further orders of the Court.
4. If defendant fails to deposit the amount within 60
days, leave to defend shall be resumed to be rejected
and the suit shall proceed further.
5. The Summons for Judgment No.73 of 2018 is
disposed of accordingly.
(VIDYADHAR B. KAKATKAR)
Judge,
City Civil Court,
Date: 01.10.2021 Gr.Mumbai.
Dictated on: 01.10.2021
Typed on : 05.10.2021
Signed on : 11.10.2021.
-- 19 of 20 --
20
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
11.10.2021 AT 4.00 P.M. MRS. SUPRIYA S. PAWAR
Name of the Judge (with Court Room
no.)
HHJ SHRI VIDYADHAR B.
KAKATKAR (C.R. No.15)
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgment/Order
01/10/2021
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 11/10/2021
Judgment/Order uploaded on 11/10/2021
-- 20 of 20 --