Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: SJ 66-2021 in Sum Suit 538 of 2020 .. J/1 .. Judgment
MHCC010052832021 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. 66 OF 2021
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO.538 OF 2020
Bharati R. Shah,
Aged : 64 years,
Indian Inhabitant, Occ. : Housewife,
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 7 --
SJ 66-2021 in Sum Suit 538 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.538/2020.
2. In short is the dispute between the parties is :
The defendant is dealing in automobile accessories. On
01.04.2017 defendant approached her through partners of R. H.
Associates and requested loan of Rs.5,00,000/- and agreed to pay
interest @ 1.05% p.m. On 15.04.2017, she paid Rs.5,00,000/- vide
cheque No.235. In lieu of it, defendant executed promissory note of
Rs.5,00,000/- and agreed to pay interest @ 1.05% p.m. The defendant
paid interest every six months on the principal amount upto
30.09.2018. Thereafter he defaulted in paying interest. She contacted
defendant and requested to pay the amount with interest which he
failed. On 03.09.2019 she issued legal notice demanding Rs.6,14,800/-
with 1.05 p.m. As the amount was not paid, hence, suit.
3. In reply 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 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 and its partners and he would sign various
-- 2 of 7 --
SJ 66-2021 in Sum Suit 538 of 2020 .. J/3 .. Judgment
blank documents including cheques, promissory notes. He never met
plaintiff.
4. It is his further defence that he had borrowed
Rs.3,46,00,000/- from R. H. Associates and from various lenders. The R.
H. Associates would charge brokerage from borrower and lenders. He
paid Rs.3,41,00,000/- 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.5,00,000/-. However, the plaintiff in hand in gloves 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. It give rise to several triable issues which
needs to be considered for adjudication of dispute, hence, prayed
for 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
contentions 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 from whom he had borrowed amount. The
only question which arises is whether plaintiff had advanced an amount
of Rs.5,00,000/- to defendant. In this context the documents more
particularly the promissory note goes to show it is signed by defendant.
Further, 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
-- 3 of 7 --
SJ 66-2021 in Sum Suit 538 of 2020 .. J/4 .. Judgment
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 bank statement
clearly shows receiving the interest from defendant. The fact of paying
interest on the principal amount is not denied in reply/leave to defend.
6. Question arises if defendant had no direct contact with
plaintiff, then he had no occasion to pay interest to plaintiff by cheques.
Instead, he could have paid interest to R.H. Associates if he had direct
transaction with them. No documentary evidence to support the
defence is filed on record by defendant. Thus, the defence of dealing
with R.H 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.593797 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
-- 4 of 7 --
SJ 66-2021 in Sum Suit 538 of 2020 .. J/5 .. Judgment
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.
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 and balance amount of Rs.7,00,000/- was adjusted
towards the remaining amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. 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.
9. If that being so, then question arises whether defendant has
raised triable issues indicating he has fair and reasonable defence to
grant him conditional or an unconditional leave to defend the suit. As
discussed above, defendant in his leave to defend categorically admitted
his signature on the promissory note and further observing that
defendant paid interest from 2017-18 till 30.09.2018 by cheques to
plaintiff and not to R.H Associates. Therefore, in view of the clear
admission, I am of the view that no any triable issues are made out by
defendant to grant him an unconditional or conditional leave to defend
the suit. 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% p.a on the principal amount of Rs.5,00,000/-
would be reasonable rate of interest. In the result, I proceed to pass
following order.
O R D E R
1. The Summons for Judgment No.66 of 2021 in Summary Suit
No.538 of 2020 is made absolute.
-- 5 of 7 --
SJ 66-2021 in Sum Suit 538 of 2020 .. J/6 .. Judgment
2. The Summary Suit No.538 of 2020 stands decreed with costs.
3. The defendant is directed to pay to plaintiff an amount of
Rs.6,14,800/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Fourteen Thousand Eight
Hundred Only) with 12% p.a on the principal amount of
Rs.5,00,000/- 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
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.
-- 6 of 7 --
SJ 66-2021 in Sum Suit 538 of 2020 .. J/7 .. Judgment
“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
-- 7 of 7 --