Final Order 1

Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement
Pdf Text: MHCC010033242020 Presented on 17/03/2020
Registered on 14/02/2022
Decided on 04/02/2025
Duration Year Month Days
04 10 19
CNR No. MHCC010033242020
EXH.14
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MAZGAON
SUMMARY SUIT NO.72 OF 2022
Ravi Goenka,
Age 45 years, residing at 16, Walkeshwar Road,
Goenka House, 4th floor, Mumbai – 400 006. ...Plaintiff
Vs
1. Sayandra Raphael Gonzalves,
Age : Adult, residing at Balkrishna Apartments,
Opp. Vasai Depot, Vasai – 401 201.
2. Rachelle Raphael Gonzalves,
Age Adult, residing at Balkrishna Apartments,
Opp. Vasai Depot, Vasai – 401 201.
3. Strum Along,
at Balkrishna Apartments, Opp. Vasai Depot,
Vasai 401 201. ....Defendants
Appearances:
Adv. Abhishek Bhaduri for plaintiff.
None for defendants.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
N. B. LAVTE
(C.R.No.83)
DATED : 04th February, 2025
J U D G M E N T
( Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
This is a summary suit under Order XXXVII Rule 2 of Code
of Civil Procedure for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,06,000/- with
interest at the rate of 19% p.a..
-- 1 of 5 --
Summary Suit 72 of 2022 .. J/2 .. Judgment
2. In short it is plaintiff’s case that he is a practicing advocate.
His friend Karron Malik introduced him with defendant No.1. The
defendant No.3 is an event management company of which defendant
No.2 is a proprietor firm. The defendants approached plaintiff for
friendly loan of Rs.1,00,000/- to arrange funds for event of Garba at
Vasai and assured to return amount by 15/10/2019. The plaintiff gave
an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to defendant No.1 by RTGS. As the
defendants were falling short of Rs.50,000/- to go ahead with the event,
they again requested for Rs.50,000/-. Looking at their condition
plaintiff gave an amount of Rs.50,000/- in cash on 29/09/2019. The
defendants agreed to repay the amount on 15/10/2019.
3. When the amount was demanded on 15/10/2019,
defendants refused on the pretext of heavy losses in the said event. The
defendants issued two cheques of Rs.75,000/- each which was signed
by defendant No.2. When the cheques were deposited for encashment,
it returned with remarks “Funds Insufficient”. After repeated follow-ups
defendants gave Rs.50,000/- in cash. There is an outstanding amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- which defendants failed to repay inspite of issuance of
legal notice dated 04/12/2019. Hence, suit.
4. Persuant to writ of summons defendants failed to appear,
hence, by an order dated 19/12/2022 suit was directed to proceed
ex-parte.
5. In view of pleadings, following points arise for my
consideration and determination to which I have given my finding
alongwith reasons as under :
-- 2 of 5 --
Summary Suit 72 of 2022 .. J/3 .. Judgment
Sr. POINTS FINDINGS
1 Is plaintiff entitled for recovery of an amount of
Rs.1,06,000/- with 19% p.a. interest from
defendants ?
Partly
Affirmative
2 What order and decree ? As per final
order.
REASONS
6. In order to prove the suit claim, plaintiff filed his evidence
affidavit vide Exh-04. He placed reliance on original cheques (Exh-06
and 07), return memos (Exh-08 and 09), office copy of demand notice
alongwith postal receipts and acknowledgment (Exh-10 to 12 colly). As
the suit is proceeded ex-parte, there is no any evidence of defendants.
AS TO POINT NO.1 :
7. Heard Adv. Abhishek Bhaduri for plaintiff and gone through
documents filed on record. It is plaintiff’s case that he had advanced an
amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to defendant Nos.1 and 2 by RTGS in the
account of defendant No.1 on 27/09/2019 and Rs.50,000/- in cash on
29/09/2019. An amount of Rs.50,000/- was refunded, whereas for the
remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. Two cheques of Rs.75,000/- each
were given which were dishonoured. In order to prove the same as
discussed above plaintiff filed his evidence affidavit which is the
verbatim of the pleadings. As the suit proceeded ex-parte, his evidence
has gone unchallenged.
8. The cheques (Exh-06 and 07) reveals its is signed by
defendant No.1 as a proprietor defendant No.2. The return memos
(Exh-08 and 09) reveals the cheques were dishonoured with remark
“Funds Insufficient”, whereas, the demand notice (Exh-10) reveals
statutory notice under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act was
-- 3 of 5 --
Summary Suit 72 of 2022 .. J/4 .. Judgment
issued against defendant Nos.1 to 3. The postal acknowledgment
reveals inspite of receipt of notice the amount was not repaid. As suit
proceeded ex-parte the entire evidence has gone unchallenged.
9. Thus, plaintiff prove advancement of amount and receipt of
part amount. Thus, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- remained to be unpaid
which defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay. As regards the
rate of interest, being friendly loan interest at the rate of 6% p.a. would
be just and appropriate rate of interest. Hence, point No.1 is answered
partly in the Affirmative.
AS TO POINT NO.2 :
10. In view of the above discussion, suit deserves to be partly
decreed with costs. In the result, I proceed to pass following order :-
ORDER
1. The Summary Suit No.72/2022 is partly decreed with costs.
2 The defendants do jointly and severally to pay to plaintiff an
amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from
the date of filing of the suit till realization.
3. The decree be drawn up accordingly.
4. R & P be sent to Record Department.
( N. B. Lavte )
Judge, (C.R.No.83)
Dt.:04/02/2025 City Civil Court, Mazgaon,
MUMBAI MUMBAI
Dictated on : 04/02/2025
Transcribed on : 05/02/2025
checked on : 05/02/2025
Signed on : 06/02/2025 (N. B. Lavte)
Judge, (C.R.No.83)
City Civil Court, Mazgaon,
MUMBAI
-- 4 of 5 --
Summary Suit 72 of 2022 .. J/5 .. Judgment
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
07/02/2025 at 05.55 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME (Sonali S. Sawant)
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge H.H.J.Shri. N. B. Lavte
(COURT ROOM NO.83)
Date of pronouncement of
judgment/order
04/02/2025
Judgment/order signed by P.O. on 06/02/2025
Judgment/order uploaded on 07/02/2025
-- 5 of 5 --