Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: SJ 67-2021 in Sum Suit 537 of 2020 .. J/1 .. Judgment
MHCC010052842021
Presented on : 31.07.2021
Registered on : 31.07.2021
Decided on : 02.04.2026
Duration : 04 Y : 08 M : 02 D
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MAZGAON
SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 67 OF 2021
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO.537 OF 2020
Vimal R. Shah,
Aged : 40 years,
Indian Inhabitant, Occ. : Business,
R/a. : Balaji Krupa, 312, 5th Floor, Flat No.502,
Opp. Nappoo Hall, Teleng Road, Matunga
(Central Railway), Mumbai – 400 019.
...Plaintiff.
VERSUS
Jignesh Shah,
Age : Not known,
Sole Proprietor of Simplex Exports,
having his address at 201/202, Divine Castle,
Sunita Kutir Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.,
2nd Floor, Liberty Garden, Cross (X) Road
Number 4, Malad (West), Mumbai – 400 064.
…Defendant.
Appearances:
Adv. Darpan Jain : For plaintiff.
Adv. Cherin Lapashiya : for Defendant.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
N. B. LAVTE, (C.R.No.83).
DATE : 2th April, 2026.
-- 1 of 6 --
SJ 67-2021 in Sum Suit 537 of 2020 .. J/2 .. Judgment
J U D G M E N T
The Summons for judgment is filed under O.XXXVII Rule 3
(4) of C.P.C with prayer to make it absolute in Suit No.537/2020.
2. In short is the dispute between the parties is :
Defendant is dealing in automobile accessories. On 01.04.2017
defendant approached him through partners of R. H. Associates and
requested loan of Rs.3,50,000/- and agreed to pay interest @ 1.05%
p.m. On 15.04.2017, he paid Rs.3,50,000/- vide cheque No.447. In lieu
of it, defendant executed promissory note of Rs.3,50,000/- and agreed
to pay interest @ 1.05% p.m. The defendant paid interest up to
30.09.2018, however, thereafter defaulted. He contacted defendant and
requested to pay the amount with interest which defendant failed. On
30.09.2019 he issued legal notice. As the amount was not paid, hence,
suit.
3. In reply/leave to defend, defendant denied the entire
contents of the plaint and SJ. It is his defence that the suit and SJ are
not maintainable for lack of cause of action, limitation and bar under
Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014, the Bombay
Money Lending Act and RBI Act. It is also challenged on the ground of
non-joinder of necessary party as R.H. Associates is not made party. It is
his specific defence that R. H. Associates, a partnership firm is in the
business of financial broking in Katchi community, however all the
partners duped Katchi community for more than 500 Crores in 2018-19.
He was regularly taking financial assistance from various brokers
including R.H. Associates and did not personally meet or deal with
parties who advanced the amount. It was managed by R. H. Associates
-- 2 of 6 --
SJ 67-2021 in Sum Suit 537 of 2020 .. J/3 .. Judgment
and its partners and he would sign various blank documents including
cheques, promissory notes. He never met plaintiff.
4. It is his further defence that he had borrowed
Rs.3,46,000,00/- from R. H. Associates and from various lenders. The R.
H. Associates would charge brokerage from borrower and lenders. He
paid Rs.3,41,000,00/- to Mr. Jayesh Dedhia, the partner of R. H.
Associates. Mr. Dedhia owes him Rs.7,50,000/- out of which it was
mutually decided to set off balance of Rs.5,00,000/-. Therefore, nothing
is due and payable as he had paid all the borrowing. It was R. H.
Associates and its partners who had promised to repay the amount to
various lenders. He came to know about the existence of liability of
plaintiff of Rs.3,50,000/-. However, the plaintiff in hand in glow with R.
H. Associates have filed a false suit even though the amount is repaid.
The handwriting on blank promissory note is not of defendant and the
same is forged one. Thus, numerous triable issues are raised, hence,
prayed for an unconditional leave to defend the suit.
5. The plaintiff and defendant filed their respective written
notes of arguments. From the pleadings of the parties and the
contention raised in the written notes of arguments, the admitted
position is that defendant is not denying his signature on the promissory
note. He took defence of signing blank promissory note and handing
over it to R. H. Associates. The only question which arise is whether
plaintiff had advanced an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- to defendant. In this
context the documents and para 4 of the plaint shows the interest paid
by cheque by defendant for financial year 2017-18 and 2018-19.
Further it goes to show that interest for 6 months from 01.04.2018 to
30.09.2018 by cheque NO.593701 dated 09.10.2018 of 183 days. The
interest on principal amount is thus paid by defendant which fact is not
denied in reply/leave to defend.
-- 3 of 6 --
SJ 67-2021 in Sum Suit 537 of 2020 .. J/4 .. Judgment
6. If defendant had no direct contact with plaintiff, he had no
occasion to pay interest to plaintiff by cheques. The defendant could
have paid interest to R.A Associates instead. No documentary evidence
to support the defence is filed on record. Thus, the defence of dealing
with R.A Associates and not with plaintiff is falsified by the documents
on record. As regards defence of limitation, interest for 6 months from
01.04.2018 to 30.09.2018 is made by cheque No.593701 dated
09.10.2018 of 183 days. The suit is lodged on 30.07.2020. Thus, from
the date of last payment and the date of filing of the suit, it seems that
the suit is within limitation.
7. As regards the defence of money lending, the plaintiff
placed reliance on the authorities of
Sanjay Madhusudhan Mehra vs.
Ahuja Properties & Associates decided on 01.09.2023 in SJ No.60/2021
in Commercial Suit No.68/2021, Shobita Rani Kaushal Vs. Ketty
Jehangir H. Dhanjibhoy, 2008 (SCC OnLine Bom 388, Bipin Vazirani vs.
Raheja Design Construction Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2018 SCC OnLine Bom
19972 and Mahesh P. Raheja & Ors. vs. Base Industries Group & Ors.,
2018 SCC OnLine Bom 21322. The defence of money lending taken by
defendant sans any details. In all the above authorities referred, it was
held that in order to substantiate a case of money lending defendant
has to give details and particulars that plaintiff is engaged in the
business of money lending by showing that the activities of the plaintiff
was systematic, regular, repetitive and continuous which generated
appreciable revenue. As discussed above, the same is missing and
merely a single line pleading that plaintiff is doing business of money
lending will not attract the provisions of the Bombay Money Lending
(Regulations) Act.
8. As regards the defence of non-joinder of necessary parties,
the promissory note is signed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff.
-- 4 of 6 --
SJ 67-2021 in Sum Suit 537 of 2020 .. J/5 .. Judgment
There is no any signature of R. H. Associates, therefore, R. H. Associates
is not a necessary party to the suit. As regards the pleading that
defendant had already paid Rs.3,41,000,00/- to Mr. Jayesh Dedhia of R.
H. Associates, I am of the view that it had to do nothing with the
present dispute in hand except the bald claim. It is not supported by any
documentary evidence. Thus, considering the defence raised, I am of
the view that no any triable issues are made out by the defendant to
grant him conditional or an unconditional leave to defendant the suit.
At the cost of repetition, defendant is not denying is signature on the
promissory note. The defendant has paid interest from 2017-18 till
30.09.2018 by cheque in the account of plaintiff. Therefore, the defence
that he never met plaintiff is moonshine. Hence, he is not entitled for
conditional or an unconditional leave to defend. Therefore, the SJ is
liable to be made absolute. As regards, the rate of interest, though
1.05% p.m is claimed, however, I am of the view that interest @ 12%
on the principal amount of Rs.3,50,000/- would be reasonable rate of
interest. Hence, I proceed to pass following order.
O R D E R
1. The Summons for Judgment No.67 of 2021 in Summary Suit
No.537 of 2020 is made absolute.
2. The Summary Suit No.537 of 2020 stands decreed with costs.
3. The defendant is directed to pay to plaintiff an amount of
Rs.4,30,361/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Thirty Thousand Three
Hundred and Sixty One Only) with 12% p.a on the principal
amount of Rs.3,50,000/- from the date of filing of the suit till
realization.
4. The decree be drawn up accordingly.
5. The Record and Proceeding be sent to Record Department.
( N. B. Lavte )
Judge, (C.R.No.83)
Dt.:02.04.2026 City Civil Court, Mazgaon,
MUMBAI
-- 5 of 6 --
SJ 67-2021 in Sum Suit 537 of 2020 .. J/6 .. Judgment
Dictated on : 02.04.2026
Transcribed on : 04.04.2026
checked on : 04.04.2026
Signed on : 04.04.2026
( N. B. Lavte )
Judge, (C.R.No.83)
City Civil Court, Mazgaon,
MUMBAI.
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
04.04.2026 at 5.45p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME (MANISHA SRINATH)
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge H.H.J.Shri. N. B. Lavte
(COURT ROOM NO.83)
Date of pronouncement of
judgment/order
02.04.2026
Judgment/order signed by P.O. on 04.04.2026
Judgment/order uploaded 04.04.2026
-- 6 of 6 --