Final Order 1

Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement
Pdf Text: Presented on 16.04.2018
Registered on 11.06.2018
Decided on 16.11.2018
Duration Yrs. M. Days
05 05
CNR No.
EXH.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
SUMMARY SUIT NO.578 OF 2018
RAMCHAND ATMARAM NAGPAL,
The Karta and Manager of Atmaram,
Kherajmal H.U.f. age : 65 years, having his
address at 405A Neelkanth, 98, Marine
Drive, Mumbai400002. ...Plaintiff.
V/s.
1. Jinaam Fashion World
a Partnership firm having address at : BLK
A, Sunmill Compound, Opp Dena Bank,
Lower Parel West, Mumbai400013.
2. Mr.Jitendra Mulji Gada
Age : Not known Occp : Business.
Having address as : Red Springs Mills, Flat
No.3401, G.D. Ambedkar Marg, Near
Wadala Telephone Exchange, Dadar East,
Mumbai – 400014.
3. Mr.Dharmendra Mulji Gada
Age : Not known Occp : Business.
Having address as : Red Springs Mills, Flat
No.3401, G.D. Ambedkar Marg, Near
Wadala Telephone Exchange, Dadar East,
Mumbai – 400014.
MHCC01-005004-2018
-- 1 of 6 --
.. j/2 .. Summary Suit No.578/2018
4. Mrs.Sushila Dharmendra Gada
Age : Not known Occp : Business.
Having address as : Red Springs Mills, Flat
No.3401, G.D. Ambedkar Marg, Near
Wadala Telephone Exchange, Dadar East,
Mumbai – 400014.
5. Mrs.Anila Jitendra Gada,
Age & Occ : Not known, Having address as :
Red Springs Mills, Flat No.3401, G.D.
Ambedkar Marg, Near Wadala Telephone
Exchange, Dadar East, Mumbai – 400014.
...Defendants.
Appearances:
Ld. Adv.Rawal for plaintiff.
None for defendant. Hence, suit proceeded exparte against defendant.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI ABHIJEET A.
NANDGAONKAR
(C.R.No.20)
DATED : 16th November,2018
J U D G M E N T
(Exparte)
This is a suit for recovery of Rs.3,18,000/ with interest.
2. In short, plaintiff came with a case that, plaintiff is an Indian
Inhabitant, the Karta and Manager of Atmaram Khrajmal H.U.F. having
address as mentioned in the title clause of the plaint. Defendant N.1 is
the partnership firm, having its office at the address as mentioned in the
title clause of the plaint. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the partners of
defendant No.1.
-- 2 of 6 --
.. j/3 .. Summary Suit No.578/2018
3. Plaintiff submitted that, as per request of defendants plaintiff
raised funds of Rs.9,00,000/ and accordingly defendants signed and
executed necessary documents in favour of plaintiff and the interest and
repayment schedule were mutually agreed between plaintiff and
defendants, as defendants had expressed their inability to repay the
entire amount at once. Defendant No.1 on 24.05.2017 drew on
demand Bill of Exchange on defendant Nos.2 to 5 in the sum of
Rs.9,00,000/. The said Bill of Exchange accepted by defendant Nos.2
to 5 for payment when said Bill of Exchange was presented and
defendant No.1 had mutually agreed to pay and paid interest for six
months.
4. Plaintiff submitted that, defendant No.1 started making payment
in part by NEFT on 26.06.2017, 27.07.2017, 14.09.2017 and
17.11.2017 of Rs.1,50,000/ each. Hence, defendant No.1 paid
Rs.6,00,000/ leaving balance amount of Rs.3,00,000/. However,
defendants have not paid Rs.3,00,000/ and dishonoured the baill of
exchange. Defendant No.1 issued two post dated cheques on
18.01.2018 of Rs.1,50,000/ each. But both cheques were dishonoured
on the ground of “Insufficient Funds” when presented in the bank for
encashment. Therefore, plaintiff issued Advocates' Notice
dt.01.03.2018 and called upon defendants to pay the balance amount
of Rs.3,00,000/ with interest. However, defendants have not complied
the said notice. Therefore, plaintiff came before this Court against
defendants for recovery of outstanding amount. Hence, this suit
5. Writ of summons came to be issued against defendants.
Accordingly, plaintiff filed service affidavit. In spite of service of
affidavit none appeared on behalf of defendants. Hence, suit proceeded
exparte against defendants.
-- 3 of 6 --
.. j/4 .. Summary Suit No.578/2018
6. In order to prove his claim, plaintiff filed claim affidavit at Exh.5
with list of documents at Exh.6 and proved the following documents :
1. Bill of Exchange dt.24.05.2017 (Exh.7)
2. Dishonoured Cheques (Exh.8 and 9).
7. Heard learned Advocate for plaintiff. Perused the record and
submissions.
8. On perusal of bill of exchange dt.24.05.2017 it is crystal clear
that, defendant No.1 had borrowed the amount of Rs.9,00,000/ from
plaintiff and executed bill of exchange for said valuable consideration.
The said bill of exchange was accepted by defendant Nos.2 to 5 for
payment of Rs.9,00,000/. Accordingly, defendants paid Rs.6,00,000/
and for outstanding Rs.3,00,000/ issued cheques, but they were
dishonoured. From these facts it is clear that, defendant No.1 accepted
Rs.9,00,000/ from plaintiff and for that consideration executed bill of
exchange, which was duly accepted by defendant Nos.2 to 5. All these
facts clearly established that, defendants are due and payable
Rs.3,00,000/ to plaintiff with interest.
9. After service of writ of summons none appeared on behalf of
defendants. Therefore, claim put forth by plaintiff and their claim
affidavit remain unchallenged and unrebutted. Therefore, I have no
hesitation to accept the claim put forth by plaintiff. Defendants neither
present nor rebutted the claim of plaintiff. Which clearly establishes the
claim of plaintiff and therefore, plaintiff is entitled to recover amount
which borrowed by defendants along with interest @ 18% per annum.
In spite of repeated demand defendants have not paid the amount.
Therefore, costs of this suit needs to be saddled on defendants.
-- 4 of 6 --
.. j/5 .. Summary Suit No.578/2018
10. The suit remains unchallenged and undefended. Therefore,
under partIII, R(E), schedule I of Bombay City Civil & Sessions Court
Rule, 1948 plaintiff becomes entitled for refund of 2/3rd court fee
voucher, if prayed. In the result, suit deserves to be decreed with costs.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following order :
O R D E R
1. Suit is decreed with costs.
2. Defendant nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 jointly and severally do
pay Rs.3,18,000/ along with interest @ 18 percent per
annum on principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/ to plaintiff
from the date of filing of this suit till realization of
entire decreetal amount.
3. Defendant nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 jointly and severally do
bear their own costs with costs of plaintiff.
4. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
5. The 2/3rd Court fee refund voucher, as per rule, be
issued in favour of plaintiff, if prayed.
( ABHIJEET A. NANDGAONKAR )
Judge, (C.R.No.20)
Dt.: 16/11/2018 City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai
Dictated on : 16.11.2018
Transcribed on : 19.11.2018
Signed on :
kps/
-- 5 of 6 --
.. j/6 .. Summary Suit No.578/2018
“CERTIFIED TOBE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
19.11.2016 5.03 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
(KISHOR PRAKASH SHERWADE)
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge HHJ SHRI A.A.
NANDGAONKAR
(COURT ROOM NO.20)
Date of pronouncement of judgment/order 16.11.2016
Judgment/order signed by P.O. on 19.11.2016
Judgment/order uploaded on 19.11.2016
-- 6 of 6 --