Full Order Text
Final Order 1 · 19 Mar 2024 · CNR MHCC010044522018
Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement Pdf Text: Com. Suit No.676/2021 : 1 : Judgement MHCC010044522018 Presented on : 04042018 Registered on : 13062018 Decided on : 19032024 Duration : YY: MM : DD 05 : 11 : 15 IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MAZGAON, BOMBAY COMMERCIAL SUIT NO. 676 Of 2021 (OLD SUMMARY SUIT NO.600 OF 2018) Exhibit14 Nita Bharat Kumar Ruparel Proprietress of M/s. Bharat Kumar & Co. having office at Shop No.61, Thakersi Gopalji Building, 2nd Floor, 12/16, Old Hanuman Lane, 1st Cross Lane, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai, through her constituted Attorney Ms. Pravina Naranji Ruparel residing at 503, Virji Pragji Building, 69E, Shri Kutchi Lohana Niwas, Mumbai 400010. ... Plaintiff. V/s. Virendra Aeer Proprietor of M/s. Pusv Cashew Traders, Plot No. 549, Mardi CHS Ltd Sector 5, Oxform Public Sector, Charkop Kandivali West, Mumbai 400067. ... Defendant. CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE SHRI. VIRENDRA. D. KEDAR (COURT ROOM NO.14) DATE : 19th DAY OF MARCH 2024 : Appearances: Ld. Advocate D. J. Jani for Plaintiff. Defendant Exparte. -- 1 of 7 -- Com. Suit No.676/2021 : 2 : Judgement JUDGMENT 1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of sum of Rs.4,98,150/ together with further interest @ 12 % per annum on principal amount of Rs.4,05,000/ from the date of filing of the suit till its full realization. Initially the plaintiff has filed Summary Suit No.600 of 2018 for recovery of above said amount against the defendant. However, later on as per office order dated 06.04.2021, it was converted into the Commercial Suit. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are as under: The plaintiff is the Proprietress of M/s. Bharat Kumar and Co. The plaintiff's business is being managed by her sisterinlaw and Constituted Attorney Ms. Pravina Naranji Ruparel right from the beginning. The plaintiff is dealing with raw cashew nuts and other dry fruits. 3. The defendant is doing business in the name and style “M/s. Pusv Cashew Traders” as Proprietor and dealing in Konkan raw cashew nuts. 4. The plaintiff has paid an amount of Rs.12 Lakhs to the defendant for supply of raw cashew nuts on 12.04.2016 by RTGS. It was agreed that defendant would supply 10 Tonnes of cashew nuts to the plaintiff, else, the defendant would return said amount with interest @ 12% per annum. 5. It is submitted that, the defendant has failed and neglected to -- 2 of 7 -- Com. Suit No.676/2021 : 3 : Judgement supply cashew nuts as agreed. Thereupon, on repeated request, the defendant refunded a sum of Rs. 7,95,000/ to the plaintiff leaving behind balance of 4,05,000/. The defendant executed promissory note dated 13.06.2017 in favour of the plaintiff, promising therein, he would returned the balance amount together with interest. Thereafter, the plaintiff has also issued Debit Note dated 27.09.2016 to the defendant, which is received by him on 14.10.2016. 6. It is submitted that in spite of promise and in spite of repeated demands by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to repay the amount. Therefore, the plaintiff through her advocate issued notice on 23.01.2018, thereby called upon the defendant to repay amount of Rs. 4,05,000/ with interest. However, the defendant failed to repay the amount. Hence, the suit. 7. Inspite of service, the defendant failed to appear. Hence, suit proceeded Exparte him vide order dated 05.10.2021. 8. In support of her claim, the plaintiff has filed claim affidavit of PW1 Pravina Naranji Ruparel (Exh.6). The plaintiff relied upon the documents filed along with List (Exh.7). 9. Heard, the Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff. Perused the record. 10. Following points arise for my determination, to which I have given my findings with reasons as follows: Sr. No. Points Findings 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of sum of Rs.4,98,150/ together with further interest @ 12 Partly Yes. -- 3 of 7 -- Com. Suit No.676/2021 : 4 : Judgement % per annum on principal amount of Rs.4,05,000/ from the date of filing of the suit till its full realization as claimed? 2. What Order and Decree? As per final order. REASONS As to point no.1: 11. PW1 Ms. Pravina being Power of Attorney, deposed as per the contents of the plaint averments; hence I do not want to reproduce the same to avoid the repetition. The plaintiff has filed Copy of Power of Attorney dated 28.11.2017 (Exh.9) thereby she be permitted to depose on behalf of the plaintiff being aware of the facts of the case. 12. It is the case of the plaintiff that, she had given amount of Rs.12 lakhs to the defendant for supply of raw cashew nuts. However, the defendant failed to supply the same. Hence, he refunded amount of Rs.7,95,000/ leaving behind balance of Rs.4,05,000/. He executed promissory note dated 13.06.2017, thereby agreed to repay balance amount with interest. But he failed to do so. The plaintiff also issued Debit note on 27.09.2016. As the defendant failed to repay the amount, hence, the plaintiff issued notice on 23.01.2018, but of no use. The plaintiff relied on the documents such as; Original Receipt dated 29.04.2016 (Exh.10); Original Promissory Noted dated 13.06.2017 (Exh.11); Office Copy of Debit Note dated 27.09.2016 (Exh.12) and photocopy of advocate letter dated 23.01.2008 (Exh.13). 13. Herein it is to be seen that, in spite of receiving writ of summons defendant failed to appear therefore, in view of Order 37 Rule 2 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, “if defendant failed to enter an appearance -- 4 of 7 -- Com. Suit No.676/2021 : 5 : Judgement then an allegation in the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted and the plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree for any sum not exceeding the sum mentioned in the summons, together with interest at the rate specified”. 14. Herein it is to be seen that, in spite of receiving notice dated 23.01.2018, defendant failed to repay the amount. The suit is lodged on 04.04.2018. Thus, it is well within limitation. Therefore, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence the plaintiff duly proved that the defendant is liable to pay principal amount of Rs.4,05,000/. So far as rate of interest is concerned, I am of the view that looking to the nature of business transaction and current bank rate of interest, if the defendant is directed to pay the interest @ 9% p.a., then it will sub serve the purpose. Thus, in view of my above discussion, I answer to point No.1 in partly affirmative. As to Point No.2. 15. In view of my above discussion, I pass the following order: ORDER 1. Commercial Suit No.676 of 2021 is partly decreed with Costs. 2. Defendant does pay the amount of Rs.04,05,000/ with further interest @ 9% per annum from the date of its due till its full realization. 3. Decree be drawn up accordingly. 4. Commercial Suit No.676 of 2021 disposed of accordingly. Sd/ (Virendra D. Kedar) Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court, Date:.19.03.2024 Mazgaon, Gr. Mumbai (C.R. No.14) -- 5 of 7 -- Com. Suit No.676/2021 : 6 : Judgement Dictated on : 19.03.2024 Directly typed on : 19.03.2024 Signed on : 19.03.2024 -- 6 of 7 -- Com. Suit No.676/2021 : 7 : Judgement “CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.” UPLOAD DATE: 20.03.2024 NAME OF STENOGRAPHER TIME: 01.52 p.m. Mr. Ashok Sudhakar Patil Name of the Judge (With Court room no.) HHJ Shri Virendra D.Kedar (Court Room No.14) Date of Pronouncement of JUDGEMENT/ORDER 19.03.2024 JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O. on 19.03.2024 JUDGEMENT/ORDER uploaded on 20.03.2024 -- 7 of 7 --
