Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: 1 SJ No.13214 in SU No.245513
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.132 OF 2014
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO.2455 OF 2013
(UNDER ORDER XXXVII OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908)
Dattatray Maruti Kale, ]
of Mumbai, an adult, Indian, Inhabitant, ]
having his address at F Block, Sandeep ]
Mansion, Bhagwadi, 3rd Floor, Shop No.33, ]
Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai 400 002. ]...Plaintiff
V/s.
Ramkrishna @ Ramkrushna Shivram Pawar, ]
Age not known, an adlt, Indian Inhabitant, ]
having address at Security Khate, Security ]
Guard, S.S.G. No.24, Indian Govern Mint, ]
Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Fort, Mumbai ]
400 001. ]...Defendant
Advocate Mr. Ramesh Jain for the plaintiff.
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
SMT. KALPANA S. HORE
COURT ROOM NO.14
DATED : 07th JUNE, 2019.
ORDER
1. The plaintiff has taken summons for judgment.
In short, facts of the case is that:
2. Plaintiff's contention is that defendant for valuable consideration
and towards discharge of the defendant's liability towards the plaintiff,
drew and delivered a cheque dated 18.03.2013 bearing no.298770
drawn on The Mahanagar CoOperative Bank Ltd., Maze Maher, Parel
-- 1 of 4 --
2 SJ No.13214 in SU No.245513
Tank Road, M.H. Board, Kalachowki, Mumbai, for an amount of
Rs.2,00,000/ in favour of the plaintiff. The said cheque was presented
in the Bank. However, the said cheque was dishonoured with remark
“Unoperative Account”. The plaintiff by letter dated 30.03.2013 called
upon the defendant to pay the said sum of Rs.2,00,000/. The
defendant failed to comply the letter hence, the plaintiff filed the suit
for recovery of Rs.2,04,832.87/.
3. The defendant gave appearance so, the plaintiff filed summons
for judgment. The defendant by filing say contested summons for
judgment.
4. Defendant's contention is that he never received an amount of
Rs.2,00,000/ from the plaintiff nor issued cheque in favour of plaintiff.
His contention is that plaintiff and he himself are working at Sahid
Bhagatsingh Marg Government of India Mint at Fort, Mumbai. The
plaintiff is doing money lending business without holding money
lending licence. One LIC Agent is always attending the Indian
Government Mint at Fort, Mumbai and he is getting the LIC policy of
the employees of the Indian Government Mint who are in the need of
the LIC Policy. Whereas, the said LIC agent is in the touch of the
plaintiff and he is having harmonious relationship with the plaintiff.
Whereas in the year 2005, defendant was also given LIC policy work to
the agent therefore, the said Agent has requested the defendant to hand
over his bank pass book and blank cheque without signature therefore,
he was given his pass book and blank cheque without his signature and
his charges to LIC Agent. After receiving his charges, the said Agent
could not proceeded for LIC policy in defendant's name therefore, he
was shouted LIC agent therefore, in order to take the said revenge, the
-- 2 of 4 --
3 SJ No.13214 in SU No.245513
LIC agent has forged his signature on a cheque which is the subject
matter of the plaintiff's suit and said agent has given cheque to the
plaintiff for filing bogus case against defendant. At any point of time,
he had not availed any loan from the plaintiff. The plaintiff has came
with bogus case that he has given Rs.2,00,000/ to the defendant
therefore, he has issued cheque. With this, defendant contending that
he had valid defence so, leave be granted to defend the suit.
5. I have heard Advocate for plaintiff and defendant and his
Advocate absent and not argued summons for judgment.
6. Advocate for plaintiff submitted that plaintiff has given an
amount of Rs.2,00,000/ to the defendant and defendant towards the
discharge of his liability gave the cheque and the cheque was
dishonoured. The defendant has no legal and valid defence therefore,
suit for judgment be absolute.
7. I have gone through the pleadings of both the parties. The
defendant specifically came with case that he gave blank cheque to LIC
Agent and the said cheque was used by forging his signature so, I find
that the defendant has valid defence. However, the defendant is to
deposit 40% of cheque amount. With this, conditional leave to defend
the suit is granted to the defendant and accordingly, I proceed to pass
the following order:
O R D E R
(i) Conditional Leave is granted to the defendant to defend
the suit on depositing 40% of cheque of Rs.2,00,000/
i.e., Rs.80,000/ and to file written statement within
one month from the date of order.
-- 3 of 4 --
4 SJ No.13214 in SU No.245513
(ii) On failure of defendant to deposit the amount within
one month, the plaintiff is at liberty to apply for further
reliefs.
(iii) The Summons for Judgment No.132 of 2014 stands
disposed off accordingly.
( KALPANA S. HORE )
Judge,
Dated : 07/06/2019 City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai
Dictated on : 07/06/2019
Transcribed on : 07/06/2019
Signed on : 07/06/2019
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date Upload Time Name of Stenographer
07.06.2019 4.14 p.m. ARUN ANNAMALAI MUDALIYAR
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
HHJ Smt. K. S. HORE (CR 14)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGEMENT /ORDER
07.06.2019
JUDGEMENT /ORDER signed by
P.O. on
07.06.2019
JUDGEMENT /ORDER uploaded
on
07.06.2019
-- 4 of 4 --