Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: Comm.Suit No. 47/19. 1 Judgment (Exh.31).
MHCC010057642019
Presented on : 13-06-2019
Registered on : 05-07-2019
Decided on : 07-03-2022
Duration : 2 years, 8 months, 24 days
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY.
COMMERCIAL SUIT NO. 47 OF 2019
Exh.31.
Minoo Dosabhai Hansotia, age 84 years )
An adult Indian Inhabitant, )
Roshan Minoo Hansotia, age 75 years )
An adult Indian Inhabitant, )
both residing at 9, Narielvala Building )
Station Road, Mahim West, Mumbai – 400016 )...Plaintiffs
Versus
Dhaval Vijay Karia, age not known )
An adult Indian Inhabitant, )
having office address at Viki Builders, )
205/206, SoLucky Corner, Above Sunder )
Hotel, 54, M.G. Road, Vile ParleEast, )
Mumbai – 400057 )
also having his residential address at )
A1, Amber Apartment, Chitta Rajan Road, )
Vile Parle East, Mumbai – 400057 )...Defendant
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE SHRI R.R.BHAGWAT.
(COURT ROOM NO.31).
DATE : 7th MARCH, 2022.
-- 1 of 17 --
Comm.Suit No. 47/19. 2 Judgment (Exh.31).
Shri L.A.Pirani, Advocate for the plaintiffs.
Shri Nikhil Mishra, Advocate for the defendant.
JUDGMENT
1. This is suit for recovery of money.
2. Case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is as under :
The plaintiffs are carrying on the business of customs
clearing and freight forwarding. The defendant is involved in the
business of real estate and he is Managing Director of Viki Builders Pvt.
Ltd.. As the defendant was in need of financial assistance, he
approached the plaintiffs for loan of Rs.5,00,000/. The defendant
agreed to pay interest thereon at the rate of 1.25% per month.
Accordingly, the plaintiffs lent loan amount of Rs.5,00,000/ to the
defendant by cheque no. 353669 dated 04/11/2015 drawn on Yes Bank
Ltd., Andheri (West) Branch as per the entry in the statement of Saving
Bank Account No. 001090700004540 maintained by the plaintiffs in
Yes Bank. In order to secure repayment of loan amount, the defendant
executed a Demand Promissory Note dated 04/11/2015 promising to
pay on demand Rs.5,00,000/ to the plaintiffs with interest at the rate
of 1.25% per month.
3. The defendant paid interest of Rs.31,042/ to the plaintiff
for the period from 04/11/2015 to 31/03/2016 as per credit entry
dated 21/03/2016 in statement of Saving Bank Account No.
075602000002103 maintained by the plaintiffs in Indian Overseas
Bank, Chakala Branch. Subsequently, the defendant failed to pay the
interest as well as the loan amount. Basically, the plaintiffs had granted
the loan amount to the defendant through the broker namely M/s.
-- 2 of 17 --
Comm.Suit No. 47/19. 3 Judgment (Exh.31).
Evergreen Enterprises (the broker). The plaintiff issued demand notice
dated 25/02/2019 through his advocate to the defendant calling upon
him to pay the loan amount of Rs.5,00,000/ with interest of
Rs.2,16,986/ for the period from 01/04/2016 to 28/02/2019 within
four days on receipt of the notice, but in vain.
4. The plaintiffs had filed application for preinstitution
mediation on 11/03/2019 and the defendant attended the mediation
on 25/04/2019, but the defendant was not willing for mediation. In
the result, Nonstarter Report was issued on 12/06/2019. The loan
amount was granted in Mumbai and it was repayable to the plaintiff in
Mumbai. Since cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this
Court, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of loan amount of
Rs.5,00,000/ with interest of Rs.2,25,500/ at the rate of 1.25% per
month from 01/04/2016 to 30/04/2019 (total Rs.7,25,500/). He also
claimed further interest on the loan amount of Rs.5,00,000/ at the rate
of 1.25% per month from the date of the suit till the date of realization
with costs of the suit.
5. The defendant filed written statement (Exh.6) in which
he has pleaded as under :
The plaintiffs have not set out true and correct facts in the
suit. The transaction described in the suit is not a transaction falling
within the purview of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (for short, 'the
Act'). Transaction in the suit falls within purview of the Bombay Money
Lenders Act, 1946 and it deserves to be dismissed as per Section 10 of
the said Act. The plaintiffs have not made M/s. Evergreen Enterprises
party to the suit. The suit is liable to be dismissed on account of non
joinder of necessary parties.
-- 3 of 17 --
Comm.Suit No. 47/19. 4 Judgment (Exh.31).
6. The defendant has denied to have knowledge regarding
occupation of the plaintiffs. He further denied to be in need of financial
assistance and to have approached the plaintiffs for loan of
Rs.5,00,000/. The defendant never met the plaintiffs personally. He
further denied to have paid interest of Rs.31,042/ to the plaintiffs.
7. After denying material part of the plaintiffs' case, the
defendant pleaded that in the year 2015, he was undergoing a financial
crisis and he approached Mr. Nilesh Bharani of M/s. Evergreen
Enterprises. In the month of November2015, Mr. Nilesh Bharani
handed over a cheque of Rs.5,00,000/ to the defendant drawn in his
favour. Mr. Nilesh Bharani requested the defendant to repay the said
amount in due course of time and asked him to sign on a blank
document by representing that in case of nonpayment, the said
document would be used for recovery purpose. The said blank
document is now filed by the plaintiffs with details filled in it. Mr.
Nilesh Bharani had requested the defendant to hand over a cheque of
Rs.31,042/ to him in the name of the plaintiffs. It is specific case of the
defendant that broker M/s. Evergreen Enterprises had not addressed
any notice to him making demand of the loan amount and the interest
thereon. The plaintiffs had not addressed any correspondence until
24/02/2019. The defendant denied the liability to pay loan amount of
Rs.5,00,000/ with interest thereon at the rate of 1.25% per month
from 01/04/2016. He also denied correctness of valuation of the suit.
He prayed for dismissal of the suit with exemplary costs.
8. My learned predecessor framed issues at Exh.10 on
08/01/2020. The plaintiffs filed list of witness (Exh.11) and examined
PW 1 Roshan (plaintiff no.2) on evidence affidavit (Exh.12). She
-- 4 of 17 --
Comm.Suit No. 47/19. 5 Judgment (Exh.31).
proved documents (Exh.13 to 18). Subsequently, advocate for the
defendant admitted two bank statements of plaintiffs' account in Yes
Bank, Andheri (West) Branch and Indian Overseas Bank, Chakala
Branch) (Exh.19 and 20 respectively). Then, the plaintiff closed the
evidence vide pursis Exh.21 on 04/03/2020.
9. The defendant examined himself as DW 1 Dhaval on
evidence affidavit (Exh.22) and his crossexamination was conducted
on 26/02/2021. The defendant had filed application for issuing witness
summons to the broker on 04/12/2021 and it came to be rejected for
reasons recorded in roznama. Evidence of the defendant was also
closed as per order in roznama dated 04/12/2021.
10. Heard learned counsel Shri L.A.Pirani for the plaintiffs and
learned counsel Shri Nikhil Mishra for the defendant.
11. Learned counsel Shri L.A.Pirani for the plaintiff
advanced arguments as under :
The plaintiff had advanced loan of Rs.5,00,000/ to
the defendant by cheque and relevant entry regarding withdrawal of the
amount is reflecting in bank statement of the plaintiff's account in Yes
Bank, Andheri (West) Branch (Exh.19). The defendant paid interest of
Rs.31,042/ by cheque as per entry in bank statement of the plaintiff's
account in Indian Overseas Bank, Chakala Branch (Exh.20). The
defendant has admitted receipt of the cheque in para 5 of the written
statement and he has also admitted his signature on Promissory Note
(Exh.13) in para 6 of written statement. Similarly, issuance of the
cheque to pay the interest is admitted in para 7 of the written
statement. The defendant has admitted material aspects of transaction
-- 5 of 17 --
Comm.Suit No. 47/19. 6 Judgment (Exh.31).
between the plaintiff and the defendant. Promissory Note contains
details of receipt of Rs.5,00,000/ and payment of interest thereon at
the rate of 1.25% per month. Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881 (for short, 'the N.I.Act') provides authority given to the holder
of negotiable instrument by the person signing the same. Admission
regarding signature on the Promissory Note is sufficient. Section 79 of
the N.I.Act prescribes for payment of interest at a specified rate
expressly made payable on a Promissory Note or a Bill of Exchange.
When no rate of interest is specified in the instrument, interest at the
rate of 18% per annum may be calculated and paid as per Section 80 of
the N.I.Act.
12. According to him, the plaintiff does not carry out the
business of moneylending. The defendant has relied upon Section 10
of the Bombay MoneyLenders Act, 1946, but it is repealed after
introduction of the Maharashtra MoneyLending (Regulation) Act,
2014. The defendant paid interest on 21/03/2016. Application for pre
institution mediation is filed on 11/03/2019 before the expiry of three
years period from 21/03/2016. NonStarter Report is issued on
12/06/2019 and the suit is lodged on that day. He read out proviso to
Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and also relied upon the citation
of Prafulla Chandra Nag V/s. Jatindra Nath Kar (1938) Indian Law
Reports 320 to state that the cheque is evidence of acknowledgement
of payment. Therefore, the suit is well within limitation. The suit of
the plaintiff is maintainable.
13. Citation of Mandubai Vitthoba Pawar V/s. The State of
Maharashtra 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 4935 is relied upon by learned
counsel Shri L.A.Pirani to state that a few transactions of advancing
-- 6 of 17 --
Comm.Suit No. 47/19. 7 Judgment (Exh.31).
loan do not make moneylending transaction. Third citation of Uttam
Bhikaji Belkar V/s. The State of Maharashtra (Criminal Writ
Petition No. 343/2017 decided by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay
Bench at Aurangabad on 22/06/2017) is referred to state that an
isolated transaction of advancing loan cannot bring the accused within
the framework of Section 5 of the Bombay MoneyLenders Act, 1946 as
per observations in para 5 and 6. With the help of above referred
citations, learned counsel Shri L.A.Pirani for the plaintiff submitted that
the plaintiff has proved his case and the defendant does not have any
ground to raise. He prayed to decree the suit with costs.
14. Learned counsel Shri Nikhil Mishra for the defendant
argued his case as under :
The plaintiff is carrying the business of money
lending and his case is hit by the provisions of the Bombay Money
Lenders Act, 1946. The plaintiff has admitted in crossexamination on
evidence affidavit (Exh.12) that all four entries in the letter of Indian
Overseas Bank (Exh.18) are in respect of receipt of interest and these
interests are in respect of money which she had lent. He also referred
the said letter (Ex.18) and submitted that the plaintiff had filed the suit
against M/s. Style Code whose name is mentioned at Sr.no.1 in the
table in Exh.18. He has also shown to the Court the copy of exparte
judgment in the suit filed by plaintiff against M/s. Style Code having
Commercial Suit No. 57/2019 (placed on record with list of documents
Exh.23). It is mentioned in para 4 of the said judgment that the
plaintiff had granted the loan to the defendant through broker M/s.
Evergreen Enterprises. It is mentioned in para 11 of the said judgment
that the defendant agreed to pay on demand the amount with interest
thereon at the rate of 1.25% per month. The plaintiff had given sums
-- 7 of 17 --
Comm.Suit No. 47/19. 8 Judgment (Exh.31).
for investment to the broker as admitted in crossexamination by the
plaintiff. All these acts are sufficient instances of moneylending and
therefore, the case of the plaintiff is not maintainable and it is liable to
be dismissed. According to him, citations of Uttam Belkar and
Mandubai Pawar (cited supra) are relating to an isolated transaction of
moneylending and they are not applicable to the case in hand.
15. This Court had rejected the application (Exh.28) filed by
the defendant for issuing witness summons to the broker M/s.
Evergreen Enterprises as per order passed in roznama dated
04/12/2021. The defendant had just signed the Promissory Note
(Ex.13) and contents were filled by the broker. The defendant has not
admitted part of interest written in the Promissory Note (Exh.13).
According to him, the disputed transaction is entered into through the
broker and he is necessary party to the suit. By raising points of money
lending transaction and nonjoinder of necessary party, learned counsel
Shri Nikhil Mishra submitted that the suit may be dismissed.
16. My learned predecessor had framed issues at Exh.10 and I
reproduce the same and record the findings against them for reasons to
follow :
SR.NO. ISSUES FINDINGS
1. Whether the suit is barred by the
Law of Limitation ? In the Negative.
2. Whether the suit is liable to be
dismissed under Section 10 of
the Bombay Money Lenders
Act,1946 ? In the Negative.
3. Whether the suit is liable to be
-- 8 of 17 --
Comm.Suit No. 47/19. 9 Judgment (Exh.31).
dismissed for nonjoinder of
necessary party ? In the Negative.
4. Whether the Plaintiff proves that
the Defendant is liable to pay
Rs.5,00,000/ to the Plaintiff ? In the Affirmative.
5. Whether the Plaintiff proves that
interest at the rate of 1.25% per
month is payable on the sum of
Rs.5,00,000/ from 1 st April,
2016 till payment or
realisation ? In the Affirmative.
6. What order as to costs ? As per final order.
7. What order and decree ? Suit is decreed.
REASONS
AS TO ISSUE NO.1 :
17. Entries in the plaintiff's statement of account of Yes Bank
(Exh.17) shows that amount of Rs.5,00,000/ was withdrawn by the
defendant on 05/11/2015. Letter of Indian Overseas Bank (Exh.18)
reveals that the defendant had credited the amount of Rs.31,042/ in
the account of the plaintiff on 21/03/2016. It means that the
defendant has acknowledged the liability to repay the amount of
Rs.5,00,000/ to the plaintiff. Learned counsel Shri L.A.Pirani for the
plaintiff has rightly relied upon observations in Prafulla Chandra Nag's
case (cited supra) in order to take the issuance of cheque for repayment
of the amount as an acknowledgement of the liability. In addition to it,
Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides that,
“Where payment on account of debt or of interest on
a legacy is made before the expiration of the
-- 9 of 17 --
Comm.Suit No. 47/19. 10 Judgment (Exh.31).
prescribed period by the person liable to pay the debt
or legacy or by his agent duly authorized in this
behalf, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed
from the time when the payment was made :”
18. In short, date of payment of Rs.31,042/ i.e. 21/03/2016
can be taken as a starting point of limitation to file the suit. Nonstarter
Report dated 12/06/2019 is annexed with the plaint and it reveals that
the plaintiff had applied for preinstitution mediation on 11/03/2019.
It means that the plaintiff approached the Court before expiry of three
years period to file the suit on the basis of the Promissory Note in view
of Article 36 in the schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 read with
Section 19 of the said Act. The suit is immediately presented for
registration on 12/06/2019. Material on record is sufficient to show
that the suit is filed well within period of limitation. Accordingly, I
record my finding as to issue No.1 in the negative.
AS TO ISSUE NO.2 :
19. So far as question of moneylending transaction is
concerned, plaintiff Roshan (PW 1) has admitted in her cross
examination on evidence affidavit (Exh.12) that the entire transaction
was done through broker. She further deposed that she wanted to
invest the money that she had and the defendant is not her friend. She
further deposed that for investing her money, she appointed a broker
who told her that he would decide where the amount was to be
invested. She further stated that she received interest from the
defendant only once. She admitted that she was also receiving interest
from others with whom she had invested the money. After deposing
about material aspect of receipt of interest, she further deposed that this
was for the first time she had invested. When PW 1 Roshan was
-- 10 of 17 --
Comm.Suit No. 47/19. 11 Judgment (Exh.31).
confronted with her bank statement of Yes Bank (Exh.17), she admitted
that entry at sr.no.4 is in respect of payment made to M/s. Style Code.
She further proved letter of Indian Overseas Bank (Exh.18) and
deposed that all four entries are in respect of receipt of interest. She
further deposed that these interests are in respect of money which she
had lent. In short, Exh.17 is the document showing that the plaintiff
had lent money to one more person in addition to the defendant and
Exh.18 is the document showing that she had received interest from
three different persons to whom she had lent the money.
20. If evidence discussed in above para is taken into account,
question arises as to whether these few instances of moneylending can
be said to have been hit by Section 10 of the Money Lenders Act, 1946.
In order to address this question, it is necessary to consider that the
Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946 is repealed by virtue of Section 56 of
the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014. Now, Section
13 of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 prevents
the Court from passing a decree in favour of a money lender in any suit
if he is not having a valid licence at the time of lending money / loan. In
order to attract bar of Section 13 of Maharashtra Money Lending
(Regulation) Act, 2014, definition of 'Money Lender' provided in Section
2(14) of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 has to
be taken into account. It has two basic criterias i.e. (i) carries on the
business of money lending in the State or (ii) has his/its principal place
of such business in the State. Similarly, definition of 'Loan' as provided
in Section 2(13) is relevant and it prescribes an advance at the interest
whether of money or any kind. Admittedly, the plaintiff has advanced
the money to the defendant at the interest and therefore, this
advancement of money can be termed as 'Loan'.
-- 11 of 17 --
Comm.Suit No. 47/19. 12 Judgment (Exh.31).
21. Hon'ble Bombay High Court has observed in para 11 in
Mandubai Vitthoba Pawar's case (referred above) that,
“11. The above discussion makes it clear that for
it to be a business there has to be a continuous and
systematic activity by application of labour or skill
with a view of earning income when it could be called
“business”. In order to do business of money lending,
it would be necessary for the State to point out
multiple activities of money lending done by the
petitioner. Merely referring to one isolated
transaction claimed to be a loan transaction or
money lending would not be enough to show that the
petitioner was involved in “business of money
lending” without licence. The FIR in the present
matter read as a whole does not spell out that the
petitioner was doing “business of money lending”.
This being so, on the basis of such FIR the
prosecution cannot be maintained.”
22. Similar observations are made in para 5 and 6 in Uttam
Bhikaji Belkar's case (referred above) by making reference of Mandubai
Vitthoba Pawar's case. Hon'ble Bombay High Court has also dealt with
the aspect of money lending transaction in the case of Base Industries
Group and one in the matter between Mahesh P. Raheja and others
V/s. Base Industries Group and others (CS No. 488/2018 in Comm
Execution Application No. 63/2017 in Suit No. 119/2016 passed on
13/22 July, 2018). In the said matter, the defendant had raised
objection to the execution of the consent decree on the ground that the
consent decree is a nullity because the parent transaction on which the
suit was founded was a money lending transaction. While dealing with
this objection, Hon'ble Bombay High Court elaborately discussed the
concept of money lending business and it is observed in para 36 as
under :
-- 12 of 17 --
Comm.Suit No. 47/19. 13 Judgment (Exh.31).
“36. From this discussion, the following
propositions emerge:
(a) Not every loan is axiomatically a money
lending transaction for the purposes of the
1946 or the 2014 Acts. There is no such
presumption in law.
(b) It is doing of the 'business of money
lending' that attracts the provisions of the
statute. In interpreting the phrase, the
correct emphasis is on the word 'business',
not 'moneylending'. It is the word
'business', and not the expression 'money
lending', that is determinative. Simply
put, every instance of lending money is not
moneylending. Not every lender is a
Shylock.
(c) To constitute 'business', a single isolated
instance does not, and even several
isolated stray instances do not, constitute
'the business of moneylending'. To be
engaged in the 'business of moneylending',
the activity must be systematic, regular,
repetitive, and continuous, and must
generate an appreciable revenue. The fact
that the borrower is a stranger to the
lender does not on its own make the latter
a 'moneylender'.
(d) A loan recovery action is not barred
merely because there is a loan. It has to
be shown that the loan was part of 'the
business of moneylending'.
(e) A plaintiff seeking a recovery of a loan is
not required to show that his suit is not
barred by the Money Lenders Act. It is
always for the defendant who puts up
moneylending as a defence to show that
-- 13 of 17 --
Comm.Suit No. 47/19. 14 Judgment (Exh.31).
the transaction is forbidden by the Money
Lenders Act.”
23. In the light of discussion of the evidence in the present
matter and legal position, it is clear that the plaintiff has lent money to
the defendant and two other persons. These three transactions are
entered into through the medium of the broker. The plaintiffs are old
aged persons who seem to have been trying to generate some income
from their savings by making investments through the broker. While
doing so, they have not engaged in fullfledged systematic and
continuous activity of money lending business. Material on record is
too short to conclude that the plaintiffs are doing money lending
business and their case is barred either by Section 10 of the Bombay
Money Lenders Act, 1946 or by Section 13 of the Maharashtra Money
Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014. In the result, I record my finding as to
issue No.2 in the negative.
AS TO ISSUES NO.3 TO 7 :
24. Plaintiff Roshan (PW 1) has specifically deposed in her
evidence affidavit that sum of Rs.5,00,000/ was advanced to the
defendant by cheque no. 353669 drawn on Yes Bank on 04/11/2015
with interest at the contractual rate of 1.25% per month from
01/04/2016 to 30/04/2021. In order to substantiate her contention,
she has placed on record copy of statement of her account maintained
with Yes Bank, Andheri Branch (Exh.17). She has also proved
statement of her account maintained with Indian Overseas Bank,
Chakala Branch (Exh.18) in order to establish receipt of interest of
Rs.31,042/ from the defendant by cheque no. 063162 drawn on Union
Bank, Vileparle (East) Branch. It is pertinent to note that Exh.17 and
-- 14 of 17 --
Comm.Suit No. 47/19. 15 Judgment (Exh.31).
18 are proved in the course of crossexamination of plaintiff Roshan. In
addition to it, the plaintiff has stated about execution of Promissory
Note (Exh.13) by the defendant on 04/11/2015.
25. Similarly, defendant Dhaval (DW 1) has stated in his
evidence affidavit (Exh.22) that he has received the loan through Mr.
Nilesh Bharani of M/s. Evergreen Enterprises who handed over to him a
cheque of Rs.5,00,000/ drawn in his favour and obtained his signature
and stamp on a blank undated Promissory Note. He further deposed
that Mr. Nilesh Bharani requested him to sign and hand over a cheque
of Rs.31,042/ without writing down the name of the person to whom
the said amount was to be paid. He has admitted in his cross
examination to have received amount of Rs.5,00,000/ in his account.
He has further admitted his signature on Promissory Note (Exh.13), but
made voluntary statement that he had signed on blank paper and
handed over to Mr. Nilesh Bharani.
26. In the light of evidence discussed in above two paras,
payment of the loan amount to the defendant by the plaintiffs as well as
part payment of loan amount to the plaintiffs by the defendant is well
established.
27. The defendant has admitted his signature on the
Promissory Note (Exh.13), but claimed to have entered into the
transaction through the agency of M/s. Evergreen Enterprises. Presence
of middleman in the transaction between the plaintiffs and the
defendant is having limited relevancy to the extent of establishing
contact between the parties and to work on their behalf as an agent.
Very acceptance of cheque of Rs.5,00,000/ drawn on the plaintiff's
-- 15 of 17 --
Comm.Suit No. 47/19. 16 Judgment (Exh.31).
account in Yes Bank by the defendant demonstrates that he had no
objection to take the loan amount from the plaintiffs. He has executed
the Promissory Note (Exh.13) one day before withdrawal of the amount
from the plaintiffs' account by depositing the cheque. All these events
are sufficient to show that the defendant was acting thoughtfully and he
was fully conscious of the nature of transaction that he was entering
into. Signing of the Promissory Note (Exh.13) by the defendant is
sufficient authorization on his part to the plaintiffs or the broker to get
the matter filled as per Section 20 of the N.I.Act. For all these reasons,
the plaintiffs have succeeded in establishing their claim to recover the
loan amount with accrued interest from the defendant. The plaintiffs
are entitled to get fixed interest as specified in the Promissory Note
(Exh.13) by virtue of Section 79 of the N.I.Act. As the transaction
between the parties is well established from oral as well as documentary
evidence, there is no necessity of adding the broker as a party to the
suit. Both sides are admitting to have entered into the transaction
through the broker. For this reason, presence of the broker is not
required to settle the controversy involved in the matter. In the result,
I record my findings as to issue No.3 in the negative and as to issues
No.4 and 5 in the affirmative. Costs of the suit is liable to be saddled
upon the defendant. Hence, I pass the following order :
ORDER
1. Commercial Suit No. 47/2019 is decreed.
2. The defendant is directed to pay amount of Rs.7,25,500/
(Rupees Seven Lakhs Twentyfive Thousand Five Hundred
Only) to the plaintiffs within three months from the date of
decree.
3. The defendant is further directed to pay interest at the
rate of 1.25% per month on principal amount of
Rs.5,00,000/ from the date of the suit till realization.
-- 16 of 17 --
Comm.Suit No. 47/19. 17 Judgment (Exh.31).
4. The defendant shall bear the costs of the suit.
5. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
(R.R.BHAGWAT)
Judge,
City Civil Court,
(Court Room No.31)
Date : 07/03/2022. Mumbai.
1. Dictated online on : 05 & 07/03/2022.
2. Signed on : 07/03/2022.
3. Delivered to Certified :
Copy Section on
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
07/03/2022. 5.31 p.m. Miss M.A.Kulkarni.
Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.) HHJ Shri R.R.Bhagwat.
(Court Room No.31).
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order 07/03/2022.
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 07/03/2022.
Judgment/Order uploaded on 07/03/2022.
-- 17 of 17 --