Final Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: MHCC010049582018 Presented on 17/04/2018
Registered on 17/04/2018
Decided on 21/06/2025
Duration 07Y: 02M: 04D
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT AT MAZGAON, MUMBAI
SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 139 OF 2018
(H.C.S.J. No. 230 of 2012)
IN
SUIT NO. 3121 OF 2012
(H.C. SUM SU NO. 911 OF 2012)
Amit Gokani of Mumbai ]
Indian Inhabitant, residing at 701, ]
Victoria Apartment, Mathuradas ]
Extension Road, Kandivali (West), ]
Mumbai-400 067. ]...Plaintiff
V/s.
1. Anil Gandhi of Mumbai ]
Indian Inhabitant, residing at ]
Flat No.29, Hari Niwas, 5th Road, ]
‘C’ Road, Churchgate, ]
Mumbai-400 020. ]
2. Om Education (IT) Private ]
Limited, a Private Ltd. Company ]
incorporated and registered under ]
the provisions of the Companies Act, I ]
of 1956 and having its registered ]
office at 617, Star Plaza Phulchhab Chowk, ]
Rajkot, Gujarat-360 001, India. ]
-- 1 of 16 --
2 SJ No.139/2018 In
Suit No.3121/2012
3. Dilip Shantilal Joshi ]
Indian inhabitant, a Director of ]
the Defendant No.2 abovenamed ]
residing at 15/2, Bhakti Nagar, ]
Station Plot, Rajkot-360 002. ]
Gujarat, India. ]
4. Hemanshu Pravinchandra Mehta ]
of Indian Inhabitant, the Director of the ]
Defendant No.2 abovenamed residing ]
at Balbhadra Nagar Co-op. Housing Society, ]
Block No.7, Shivsena Gali, Station Road, ]
Thane-401 010. ]...Defendants
Appearance :-
Ld. Advocate Arvind Giriraj i/b. Ashok Purohit for plaintiff.
Ld. Advocate Divya Jaiswar for defendant No.1.
Ld. Advocate Arun Kumar Maurya h/f. Adv. Shailesh Kumar for
defendants No. 2 and 4.
CORAM : HHJ SHRI SANGRAM SHRIHARI SHINDE
C. R. NO.: 81
DATE : 21/06/2025.
ORDER
( Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
01] The plaintiff has filed summons for judgment No. 230 of
2012 before Hon’ble Bombay High Court on 29/06/2012. It is re-
registered as summons for judgment No. 139/2018. Defendants No. 1
and 4 filed their reply to summons for judgment and resisted and
prayed for unconditional leave to defend the suit. Plaintiff has filed
-- 2 of 16 --
3 SJ No.139/2018 In
Suit No.3121/2012
rejoinder to reply of defendant No. 4 and denied the contents in reply.
02] As per plaintiff, he is carrying on business at address
mentioned in the title cause. Defendant No.2 is a Private Limited
Incorporated and registered company. Defendant No. 1 is controlling
the entire affairs and day to day work of defendant No. 2. Defendants
No. 3 and 4 are partners of defendant No. 2 Company. Defendant No. 1
approached plaintiff in 2nd week of December, 2010 for short term loan
on interest at the rate of 18% p.a. for 3 to 4 months. Plaintiff knows
defendant No. 1 since last 30 years therefore, advanced an amount of
Rs.15,00,000/- by issuing two cheques bearing No.407109 and 407110
dated 15/12/2010 for an amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- each drawn on
Syndicate Bank, Kandivali (West), Mumbai- 400067. The said cheques
were issued in favour of defendant No. 2 at the instance of defendant
No. 1. In the month of April, 2011 when plaintiff asked to refund the
said amount along with interest, defendant No. 1 assured that he will
repay the same within short period. However, defendant No. 1 started
avoiding the telephone calls of plaintiff. Therefore, plaintiff sent
various emails dated 25/04/2011, 26/07/2011, 05/08/2011,
06/08/2011, 07/08/2011, 09/08/2011, 11/08/2011, 16/08/2011,
07/09/2011, 09/09/2011, 14/09/2011, 19/09/2011, 06/10/2011,
06/11/2011, 15/11/2011, 06/01/2012 and 25/01/2012, called upon
defendant No.1 to make outstanding amount. As defendant No. 1
failed to repay outstanding amount therefore, on 14/12/2011, the
plaintiff issued Letter in Gujrati language to defendant No. 1 and
called upon to make the payment. Even, plaintiff and his wife
personally met to defendant No. 1 on 09/01/2012, at that time, he
had promised to repay the said amount. However, failed to repay the
amount. Therefore, again sent emails dated 15/02/2012, 17/02/2012,
-- 3 of 16 --
4 SJ No.139/2018 In
Suit No.3121/2012
18/02/2012, 19/02/2012, 20/02/2012 and 24/02/2012 to defendant
rNo. 1. Thus, despite of repeatedly requesting to defendant No. 1, he
has neglected and failed to repay the amount to plaintiff. Therefore,
plaintiff is entitled for interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on amount of
Rs. 15,00,000/-, total amounting to Rs. 18,37,500/-.
03] It is further argued that on 17/09/2013 ‘no reply’ order
was passed against defendants No.1, 2 and 4. Further, vide Exh. 7
defendant No. 1 was given opportunity to file reply to summons for
judgment. However, defendant No. 1 failed to file reply and for second
time no reply order came to be passed and summons for judgment
H.C. No. 230/2012 (No.139/2018) was made absolute on 18/12/2015
and disposed of. Thereafter, matter was proceeded ex-parte against
defendants and plaintiff has filed claim affidavit at Exh. 9 and
documents at Exh. 10 and matter was fixed for ex-parte judgment.
Further, defendant No. 1 was allowed vide order on Notice of Motion
No. 378/2017, to file reply to summons for judgment. Further,
Summons for Judgment No.230/2012 was re-registered as
No. 139/2018. Again said summons for judgment was served on
defendants No. 2 to 4 and third time ‘no reply’ order came to be passed
against defendants on 21/08/2023. Thereafter, again defendants No. 2
and 4 was allowed vide order on Notice of Motion No. 4588/2023 to
file reply. It is further submitted that order dated 17/09/2013 and
summons for judgment No. 230/2012 (No.139/2018) was made
absolute on 18/12/2015 are neither challenged nor set aside. Further,
matter was adjourned for ex-parte judgment. Therefore, question of
again deciding summons for judgment does not arise.
04] It is further submitted that defendant No. 4 has taken
limited defence that he has resigned from Directorship of defendant
-- 4 of 16 --
5 SJ No.139/2018 In
Suit No.3121/2012
No. 2 vide resignation letter dated 15/02/2019. Therefore, he cannot
be made personally liable and trying to escape from liability. However,
at the time of suit transaction, defendant No. 4 was director of
defendant No. 2 company therefore, he cannot escape from liability.
Plaintiff has filed extract of account (Exh. A) to rejoinder to
demonstrate an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- has been advanced vide
two cheques. Further, defendant No. 1 vide email dated 26/07/2011
(Exh. F to plaint), If entry of Rs. 15,00,000/- is not to ledger account
of defendant No. 2 company then it is a fraudulent act. In such
circumstances all directors are liable for such fraudulent act. There is
no other defence of defendant No. 4. Therefore, defendant No. 4 is not
entitle for leave to defend the suit. Hence, summons for judgment may
be allowed with costs.
05] On the other hand, it is contended by defendant No. 1
that vide letter dated 30/04/2012 (Exh. A), he had asked for
inspection of documents. Plaintiff has not supplied entire legible
documents and not given complete inspection of documents and it
appears from letter dated 03/07/2012 (Exh. B). Therefore, defendant
No. 1 vide letter dated 16/07/2012 (Exh. C), once again requested for
inspection and to provide documents. Thereafter, plaintiff vide letter
dated 04/08/2012 (Exh. D) provided xerox copy of plaint and affidavit
in support. Thus, Court may draw adverse inference that plaintiff has
filed false suit. There is no privity of contract between plaintiff and
defendant No. 1. There is no document to show that defendant No. 1 is
concerned with suit transaction. Thus suit is hit by mis-joinder of
necessary party. There is no cause of action against defendant No. 1.
The alleged emails sent by plaintiff to defendant No. 1 is not received
by him. Further, purported email which plaintiff is relying alleging that
-- 5 of 16 --
6 SJ No.139/2018 In
Suit No.3121/2012
it is sent by defendant No. 1 is in different context i.e. Rajkot Stock
Exchange regarding plaintiff's Joint Membership Card for Share
Broking in the Rajkot Stock Exchange, which he was holding with on
Mr. Muchala. Plaintiff was also troubling for free advice about reviving
of one defunct company viz. M/s. Sensex Services Pvt. Ltd. and to
assist for selling company into market. Thus, due to said grudge and
anger defendant No. 1 is falsely implicated. Further, plaintiff was an
ex-employee of Reliance Industries and he was in need of financial
assistance to be invested in shares and for that purpose he wants to sell
Stock Exchange Card. Thus, defendant No. 1 has raised reasonable
triable issues. Hence, summons for judgment may be dismissed with
costs.
06] On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of defendant
No.4 that there is no document to show that amount of Rs.
15,00,000/- was credited in the account of defendant No. 2. Further,
he has resigned from the post of Director vide resignation letter dated
19/02/2019 w.e.f. 21/02/2019. Further, to support said contention he
has filed his application (Exh. 1) along with reply. It is also submitted
that his resignation was accepted by Registrar of Company and to
support said contention filed document (Exh.2). It is submitted
plaintiff is misleading, misguiding this Court and has suppressed
material fact from the court. The suit filed by the plaintiff is on
imaginary story of alleged suit transaction. Defendant No. 4 is not
concerned with the suit transaction as there is nothing on record to
show that plaintiff had advanced amount to defendant No. 4 or there is
any correspondence between plaintiff and defendant No. 4. Even,
defendant No. 1 is not concerned with defendant No. 2 as there is no
documentary evidence on record. There are no allegations against
-- 6 of 16 --
7 SJ No.139/2018 In
Suit No.3121/2012
defendants No. 2 and 3. Further, there is no document to show that
defendant No. 4 has accepted said transaction in his personal capacity.
It is settled law that Directors of Company are not held personally
liable for the liability/debt of company. There is no privity of contract
between plaintiff and defendant No. 4. He has relied on ratio laid
down in Tristar Consultants vs. Vcustomer Services India Pvt. Ltd. &
Ors., and M/s. Faith Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. Simbhaoli Sugars Ltd
& Ors. Thus, the suit against the defendant No. 4 is not based on
contract or any bill of exchange. Even, there is no liability on
defendant No. 4 against plaintiff. The email correspondence is not with
this defendant. Plaintiff has not produced certificate under Section
65B(4) of Indian Evidence Act therefore, said emails cannot be
considered. Thus, plaintiff has filed false suit and summons for
judgment against him. Thus, defendant No. 4 has raised reasonable
triable issues. Therefore, summons for judgment may be dismissed
with costs.
07] Perused summons for judgment, reply by defendants
No. 1 and 4, rejoinder and record of the case. Heard both parties. I
have gone through case laws cited by defendant No. 4. It is pertinent
to note that prior to go into merits, it is necessary to go through
rozanama of the proceedings. The originally matter was instituted
before Hon'ble Bombay High Court and it was transferred to the City
Civil Court, Mumbai from Hon’ble Bombay High Court. On perusing
roznama dated 05/12/2012, it is noted that defendant No. 1 caused
his appearance on 02/05/2012 and even defendants No. 2 and 4
appeared in the matter on 02/05/2012 along with counsel. Matter was
adjourned for steps against defendant No. 3 on 03/04/2013. It appears
that on 03/04/2013, advocate Deepali Minekar for defendants No. 3
-- 7 of 16 --
8 SJ No.139/2018 In
Suit No.3121/2012
and 4 appeared. Matter was adjourned for hearing on summons for
judgment No. 230/2012 on 13/06/2013, 01/07/2013, 06/08/2013
and 17/09/2013. On 17/09/2013, it is noted that defendants absent
and not filed reply to summons for judgment therefore, matter was
adjourned for argument of summons for judgment on 21/10/2013,
04/12/2013, 13/12/2013. On 13/12/2013, defendant No. 1 filed an
application at Exh. 7 to seek permission to file reply to summons for
judgment. Therefore, matter was adjourned on 08/01/2014 to file say
on Exh. 7 and matter was adjourned on 08/01/2014. On that day,
plaintiff sought adjournment to file reply and matter was adjourned on
16/01/2014. On that day, plaintiff filed reply to Exh. 7 and matter
was adjourned for hearing on Exh. 7 on 18/02/2014, 10/03/2014,
03/04/2014, 09/06/2014, 09/07/2014, 30/08/2014, 10/10/2014,
17/12/2014. On 17/12/2014, application at Exh. 7 came to be
allowed and defendant No. 1 was allowed to file reply to summons for
judgment. The matter was adjourned on 04/02/2015 for filing reply
on summons for judgment and to file original documents. On
04/02/2015, plaintiff brought original documents and was ready to
give inspection however, defendant No.1 had not filed reply to
summons for judgment. Therefore, matter was adjourned for reply to
summons for judgment on 27/02/2015, 09/04/2015, 26/06/2015,
20/08/2015 and 16/10/2015. On 16/10/2015, it is noted in roznama
that no reply to summons for judgment by defendant and matter was
adjourned on 18/12/2015 for filing service report. On 18/12/2025,
plaintiff filed affidavit of service for summons for judgment. As
defendant failed to file reply to summons for judgment within 10 days
from the date of service of summons for judgment, therefore, case
proceeded exparte against defendants under Order 37, Rule 3 (6) (a)
of C.P.C. Summons for judgment No. 230/2012 was made absolute.
-- 8 of 16 --
9 SJ No.139/2018 In
Suit No.3121/2012
Summons for judgment No. 230 of 2012 was disposed off accordingly
and it be removed from the board. Matter was adjourned on
02/02/2016 for documents and exparte claim affidavit.
08] Further, since 02/02/2016 to 20/09/2016, it was for filing
affidavit of claim. On that day plaintiff filed claim affidavit vide Exh. 9
and list of documents vide Exh. 10. Thereafter, matter was adjourned
on 14/10/2016 and 19/11/2016 for filing affidavit of documents.
Further, matter was adjourned on 07/01/2017. On that day, defendant
No. 1 filed an application to seek copy of Claim Affidavit which was
rejected and matter was adjourned for exparte judgment on
10/01/2017. On 10/01/2017, defendant No. 1 filed draft notice of
motion on which plaintiff filed reply and it was adjourned for hearing
on 16/01/2017, 30/01/2017, 09/02/2017, 08/02/2017, 16/03/2017,
15/04/2017, 26/04/2017, 15/06/2017, 27/07/2017, 28/08/2017,
07/10/2017 for hearing on notice of motion No. 378/2017. The said
notice of motion came to be heard on 07/10/2017 and was adjourned
for order on 08/11/2017 and thereafter on 13/12/2017. On that day,
said notice of motion came to be allowed subject to cost of Rs. 2,000/-,
payable to the plaintiff within 4 weeks and matter was adjourned on
12/01/2018 for compliance as defendant No. 1 failed to comply order
of cost on 12/01/2018, order was passed to proceed matter without
W.S. of defendant No. 1 and was adjourned for evidence on
10/04/2018. However, defendant No. 1 appeared in the matter in
afternoon session at 4.30 p.m. and filed pursis at Exh. 13 intimating
that cost of Rs. 2,000/- is paid to plaintiff on 06/01/2018. Therefore,
reply of defendant No. 1 was taken on record and matter adjourned for
rejoinder to reply on 10/04/2018. On that day, the counsel for plaintiff
sought adjourned to file rejoinder. Even, order was passed to
-- 9 of 16 --
10 SJ No.139/2018 In
Suit No.3121/2012
re-register summons for judgment No.230/2012 and matter was
adjourned on 09/08/2018. Thereafter, it was adjourned on
14/12/2018 for hearing on summons for judgment. It is noted that
plaintiff has not tendered re-registered summons for judgment
No. 139/2018.
09] Thereafter, matter was adjourned for hearing on summons
for judgment on 19/03/2019, 10/07/2019, 24/09/2019, 25/11/2019,
26/02/2020 till 14/06/2022. On that day plaintiff tendered re-
registered summons for judgment No. 139/2018 and sought time to
serve said summons for judgment on defendants No. 2 to 4 and matter
was adjourned on 10/08/2022, 26/08/2022. On 26/08/2022, though
summons for judgment was served on defendant No. 2, he failed to file
reply therefore order was passed to proceed summons for judgment
without reply against defendant No.2. Plaintiff has sought
adjournment to take steps to serve summons for judgment on
defendants No. 3 and 4 and matter was adjourned on 11/10/2022,
01/12/2022. On 01/12/2022, plaintiff took out chamber summons to
serve summons for judgment by way of paper publication to
defendants No. 3 and 4 and matter was adjourned on 13/01/2023. On
that day chamber summons No. 109/2023 came to be allowed and
plaintiff was permitted to serve summons for judgment by way of
paper publication and matter was adjourned on 03/03/2023. On
perusing roznama dated 03/03/2023, it appears that summons for
judgment was served on defendants No. 3 and 4 on 21/02/2023 by
way of paper publication however, they failed to file reply. Matter was
adjourned for reply of defendants No. 3 and 4 on 19/04/2023,
01/07/2023. On that day order was passed to proceed summons for
judgment without reply against defendant No. 3 and was adjourned for
-- 10 of 16 --
11 SJ No.139/2018 In
Suit No.3121/2012
filing affidavit of service of summons for judgment to defendant No. 4
and matter was adjourned on 21/08/2023. On that day, counsel for
defendants No. 2 and 4 filed pursis with Death Certificate of defendant
No. 3 at Exh. 16. The plaintiff also filed affidavit of service of summons
for judgment to defendant No. 4. Though summons for judgment was
served on 01/08/2023 to defendant No. 4, he failed to file reply
therefore, order was passed to proceed summons for judgment without
reply against defendant No. 4 on 21/08/2023 and matter was
adjourned for hearing on summons for judgment on 20/10/2023,
31/10/2023.
10] On 31/10/2023, defendants No. 2 and 4 took out notice
of motion No. 4589 of 2023 and notice of motion No. 4588 of 2023 to
condone delay to file reply to summons for judgment. And matter was
adjourned for filing affidavit of service on notice of motion on
05/01/2024. On that day, defendants No. 2 and 4 tendered registered
notice of motion and it was adjourned for hearing on notice of motions
on 31/01/2024, 15/03/2024, 10/04/2024, 25/04/2024. On
25/04/2024, arguments on notice of motions were heard and
adjourned on 03/05/2024 for orders. On that day, both motions came
to be allowed subject to cost and matter was adjourned for compliance
on 01/07/2024. On that day, defendant No. 4 complied the order and
his reply was taken on record. The matter was adjourned for filing
original documents on 31/07/2024, 05/09/2024. On that day
defendants No. 2 and 3 requested adjournment to file reply and matter
was adjourned on 30/09/2024. As defendant No. 2 failed to file reply
to summons for judgment, order was passed to proceed without reply.
11] Thus, on perusing the roznama of this proceeding, it
appears that earlier summons for judgment No. 230/2012 was made
-- 11 of 16 --
12 SJ No.139/2018 In
Suit No.3121/2012
absolute. Thereafter, defendants took out notice of motions to seek
permission to file reply to summons for judgment which came to be
allowed. Defendants No. 1 and 4 filed reply to summons for judgment,
defendant No. 2 failed to file reply to summons for judgment and
defendant No.3 expired during pendency of suit. Further, when
summons for judgment No. 230/2012 (subsequently re-registered as
S. J. No. 139/2018) was made absolute, plaintiff ought to have
objected for notice of motion taken out by defendants to file reply to
summons for judgment. It is pertinent to note that neither plaintiff nor
defendants brought to the notice at the time of deciding notice of
motion of defendants to allow to file reply to summons for judgment.
Therefore, defendants No. 1, 2 and 4 were allowed to file reply to
summons for judgment. Therefore, in this circumstance, I am of view
that it is to be deemed that order dated 18/12/2015 of making
summons for judgment No. 230/2012 absolute is deemed to be set
aside. As defendants No. 1 and 4 have filed reply to summons for
judgment, it needs to decide on merits.
12] Perused documents and heard submissions of plaintiff and
defendants No. 1 and 4. It is the contention of plaintiff that defendant
No. 2 is a Private registered company and defendants No. 1, 3 and 4
are partners of it. Further, at the instance of defendant No. 1, plaintiff
advanced an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to defendant No. 2 by two
cheques. The plaintiff has filed photocopies of said two cheques vide
list Exh. 10/1 and 10/2 however, said copies are photocopies and
therefore, cannot be considered. It is settled law that plaintiff has to
file original documents at the time hearing of summons for judgment
as laid down in Neebha Kapoor Vs. Jayantilal Khandwala and others,
AIR 2008 SC 1117 wherein, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that, '
at
-- 12 of 16 --
13 SJ No.139/2018 In
Suit No.3121/2012
the time of hearing summons for judgment, plaintiff has to file original
documents.' Further, the plaintiff has filed original deposit slip dated
16/12/2010 vie list Exh. 10/3. On perusing said receipt, it appears
that cheque bearing No. 407109 for an amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- was
deposited in the account of defendant No. 2. It is the contention of
plaintiff that defendants had agreed to repay the said loan amount
with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. however, plaintiff has not filed any
written contract, agreement or documents on record to that effect. It is
the contention of plaintiff that as defendants failed to repay the said
amount, he has sent several emails to defendant No.1 and called upon
to make payment of loan amount with interest. The plaintiff has filed
copies of said emails on record vide list Exh. 10/2 to 10/28. On
perusing said emails, it appears said emails are sent to defendant
No. 1. As per plaintiff, defendant No. 1 vide email dated 26/07/2011
(Exh. 10/6) admitted the liability. On perusing said email, it appears
that it is contended that '
work will be done in very short time'. On
reading said email, it cannot be inferred that defendant No. 1 has
admitted liability. On the contrary, defendant No. 1 has came with a
defence that said email was in different context i.e. Rajkot Stock
Exchange regarding plaintiff's Joint Membership Card for share
broking in the Rajkot Stock Exchange, which he was holding with on
Mr. Muchala. Therefore, it becomes a triable issue. Moreover, plaintiff
has not filed requisite certificate in support of said email printouts.
Therefore, as discussed above, said emails cannot be considered at this
stage.
13] As discussed above, summons for judgment is proceeded
without reply of defendant No.2. The plaintiff to support his
contention and to demonstrate that he had paid an amount of
-- 13 of 16 --
14 SJ No.139/2018 In
Suit No.3121/2012
Rs. 15,00,000/- to defendant No. 2 has filed extract of Bank Account
as Exh. A to rejoinder. However, said statement is also not supported
by requisite certificate. Therefore, it cannot be consider at this stage. It
is pertinent to note that at this stage original deposit slip dated
16/12/2010 filed on record vide list Exh. 10/3 can be considered. On
perusing said receipt, it appears that an amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- was
deposited in the account of defendant No. 2. So far as, defence of
defendant No. 4 is concerned that he had resigned on 21/02/2019 as a
Director of defendant No. 2 company. However, defendant No. 4 has
admitted at the time of alleged transaction, he was director of
defendant No. 2 company. Admittedly, it is settled law as laid down in
case laws cited supra on behalf of defendant No. 4 that Directors of
company are not personally liable to the debt of the company.
However, if it is proved that Directors had consented for the same or
engaged in day to day affairs of company, they can be made liable.
Thus, it is a triable issue whether defendant No. 1 and 4 are liable to
pay outstanding amount payable by defendant No. 2 to the plaintiff as
claimed. Certainly, it needs an adjudication. Admittedly, at this stage
plaintiff has not brought any documentary material on record to show
that defendants No. 1 and 4 were looking after day to day affairs of
defendant No. 2 and they are personally liable. Thus, defendants No. 1
and 4 have raised reasonable triable issues as whether there is cause of
action against them. It needs adjudication. Therefore, I am of view that
defendants No. 1 and 4 are entitled for unconditional leave to defend
the suit. So far as defendant No. 3 is concerned suit is abated against
him. Defendant No. 2 has not filed reply to summons for judgment.
Therefore, plaintiff is entitled for decree as per Order 37, Rule 6(a) of
C.P.C. for an amount of Rs. 7,50,000/-. However, as there is nothing in
writing on record that defendant No. 2 agreed to repay said amount
-- 14 of 16 --
15 SJ No.139/2018 In
Suit No.3121/2012
with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. Hence, I proceed to pass following
order.
ORDER
1] Summons for judgment No. 139/2018 (H.C. S. J. No. 230/2012)
is disposed off as follows:-
(a) Defendants No. 1 and 4 are granted unconditional Leave
to defend the suit and directed to file written statement on
or before next date.
(b) Summons for judgment No. 139/2018 (H.C. S. J. No.
230/2012) is partly made absolute against defendant
No. 2 for an amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- (Rs. Seven Lakhs
Fifty Thousands only).
(c) Decree be drawn up accordingly against defendant No. 2.
2] Summons for judgment No. 139/2018 is disposed off accordingly.
(Sangram S. Shinde)
Adhoc Judge,
City Civil Court Mazgaon, Mumbai
Date: 21/06/2025 Court Room No.81.
Dictated on: 21/06/2025
Corrected & signed on: 24/06/2025
-- 15 of 16 --
16 SJ No.139/2018 In
Suit No.3121/2012
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
26/06/2025 Mrs. V. V. Malgaonkar
Name of the Judge
(with Court Room No.)
Shri S. S. Shinde
C.R. No.81
Date of Pronouncement of JUDGMENT/
ORDER
21/06/2025
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P. O. on 24/06/2025
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 26/06/2025
-- 16 of 16 --