Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: SJ 94/18 IN SUM.836/17 1
MHCC010035312018
Received on : 19.03.2018
Registered on : 19.03.2018
Decided on : 10.01.2022
Duration : 03Y 09M 22D
EXHIBIT-
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.94 OF 2018
( CNR No.MHCC010035312018 )
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO. 836 OF 2017
1. M/S. BRIDGESTONE INDIA PVT. LTD. & Ors. … Plaintiffs
Vs.
1. AADYA MOTOR COMPANY PVT. LTD. And
Others.
… Defendants
Advocate Kapil Shetty for the plaintiff.
Advocate Tejas Baviskar for the Defendant.
CORAM : HER HONOUR AD-HOC JUDGE
SMT. C.V. PATIL
(C.R.NO.15)
DATE : 10th January, 2022
JUDGMENT
1. The Plaintiff has filed Summons for Judgment and he has claimed
amount sought by him in the plaint. It is submitted that the plaintiff is
Private Limited Company registered under the Companies Act. 1956.
The Company of the plaintiff is engaged in the business of
-- 1 of 6 --
SJ 94/18 IN SUM.836/17 2
manufacturing, importing, selling of tires and tubes in India. The
person Mr. Farooqui Sadique Mohit, who has signed the plaint is duly
authorized by Executive Director of the Company. Accordingly Power
of Attorney is executed on 01.03.2017 in his favour. The defendant
Company is the dealer of Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. The Company of
the defendant was purchasing various quantities of tires and tubes from
the plaintiff Company as per their requirements. The plaintiff Company
in their regular course of business raised invoices against the goods
supplied by them to the defendants. The goods were always supplied
by the plaintiff Company as per Order placed by defendants. Whatever
the payments have been made by the defendants, that have been
accounted in the statement of accounts maintained by the plaintiff
Company. As per statement of the plaintiff Company the overdue
outstanding against the defendant as on 31.05.2016 was
Rs.5,86,867.14/- (Rs. Five Lakh Eighty Six Thousand Eight Hundred
Sixty Seven and Fourteen Paise only). The plaintiff has given details i.e.
invoice No., Amount against the invoices and interest in para No.4 page
3 of the plaint. As per statement in that para the, amount of invoices is
Rs.5,58,912.88/- and the interest is Rs.66,713.22/-. Accordingly the
total due amount as on the date of filing of the suit is shown as
6,25,626.10/-.
2. The plaintiff has claimed amount time to time from
defendant but defendant has failed to pay due amount. Therefore, the
plaintiff has issued legal notice on 04.06.2016 and called upon the
defendants to pay due amount as sought by plaintiff. Inspite of notice
the defendants have failed to pay the amount. The plaintiff has filed
suit within limitation. All the transaction had taken place between
parties in the jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed
-- 2 of 6 --
SJ 94/18 IN SUM.836/17 3
suit for recovery of the due amount and in that suit, he has filed
summons for judgment for claiming the said amount.
3. The defendants have filed reply to the Summons for
Judgment and denied the contents of Summons for Judgment. It is the
statement of defendants that the present suit in the nature of Summary
Suit is not maintainable. The plaintiff has filed false and frivolous suit,
therefore, it deserves to be dismissed with costs. The suit has been filed
without any cause of action. The defendants never admitted the due of
the plaintiff therefore, the suit is not tenable as Summary Suit. The
plaintiff has not complied necessary requirements of Summary Suit as
narrated by full bench of Hon’ble High Court. On that ground the
defendant is entitled for unconditional leave to defend the suit. The
defendant has not accepted invoices filed by the plaintiff. The person
who has signed the plaint has not properly authorized. As per
statement of the defendant the material supplied by plaintiff was not
matched with the requirements of the defendants order. Therefore, the
defendants are not liable to pay the amount to the plaintiff. With this
objections the defendant submitted that he has triable issues therefore,
the defendants be allowed to defend the suit unconditionally.
4. From pleadings following points arise for consideration to
which I have given reasons before them :-
Sr.
No.
POINTS FINDINGS
1 Does plaintiff prove due amount of
Rs.6,25,626.10/- and entitled for Summons
for Judgment ?
Partly Affirmative
2. Do the defendants entitled for
unconditional leave to defend the suit ?
In the Negative
-- 3 of 6 --
SJ 94/18 IN SUM.836/17 4
3 What Order ? Summons for
Judgment is partly
allowed.
R E A S O N S
AS TO POINT NOS.1 AND 2:
5. Heard Learned Advocates for plaintiff as well as
defendants. As per the statement of the plaintiff the plaintiff has
delivered goods to defendants but defendants failed to pay the amount
shown by them in the invoices. The plaintiff has filed copies of invoices
below list dated 26.04.2017. He has filed invoices and shows due
amount in para No.4 of the plaint. Whatever amount shown by plaintiff
in para 4 of the plaint he has produced relevant invoices on record. On
perusal of those invoices it appears that those have been issued in the
name of defendants. However, in para 9 of the reply the defendants
have admitted receipt of goods from the plaintiff but it is their case that
the goods delivered by plaintiff was not matching with the requirements
of the order of defendants. The statement of the defendants shows that
the defendants have admitted receipt of the goods from plaintiff. When
it is the case of the defendants that the goods supplied by plaintiff was
not matching with the requirements of their order then it was for them
to brought the said circumstances on record. The defence without
supporting relevant documents or circumstances is not acceptable. On
the other hand as per invoices of the plaintiff the defendants have
admitted receipt of the goods.
5. The defendants have also raised other objections that the
suit is not tenable as Summary Suit, it is not signed by proper person.
But all these questions will be decided on merits, at this stage only, it is
material to find out whether defendants are liable to pay amount
-- 4 of 6 --
SJ 94/18 IN SUM.836/17 5
claimed by plaintiff in the Summons for Judgment.
6. The plaintiff has claimed Rs.6,25,626.10/- in the Summons
for Judgment. He has shown Rs.66,713.22/- as Penal interest. The
defendants has denied the receipt of goods as per their requirements.
In such circumstances, the question of interest will be decided on merit
after giving fulflage opportunity to both the parties. The principal
amount as per invoices is Rs.5,58,912.88/-, therefore, considering the
admission from the side of defendants it is necessary for them at least to
deposit amount of Rs.5,50,000.00/-, thereafter they will be entitled to
contest the suit. Accordingly, I answer to point No.1 in the partly
affirmative and point No.2 in the negative and for point No.3 following
order is passed:-
O R D E R
1. Summons for Judgment no.94/18 is made partly
absolute.
2. Defendants do deposit an amount of Rs.5,50,000/-
(Rs.Five Lacs Fifty Thousand only) within 30 days from
the date of this order. If defendants failed to deposit the
amount within stipulated time the plaintiff shall proceed
that the suit as if there is no defence.
3. The Summons for Judgment No.94/2018 is disposed
of accordingly.
(C. V. Patil)
Ad-hoc Judge,
City Civil Court,
Date: 10.01.2022 Gr.Mumbai.
Dictated on: 10.01.2022
Typed on : 11.01.2022
Signed on : 12.01.2022
-- 5 of 6 --
SJ 94/18 IN SUM.836/17 6
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date Upload Time Name of Stenographer
13/01/2022 4.20 p.m. V. U. Pawar
Name of the Judge (With Court Room No.) HHJ Smt. C.V.Patil (CR 15)
Date of Pronouncement of JUDGEMENT
/ORDER
10/01/2022
JUDGEMENT /ORDER signed by P.O. on 13/01/2022
JUDGEMENT /ORDER uploaded on 13/01/2022
-- 6 of 6 --