Full Order Text
Order 1 · 29 Nov 2021 · CNR MHCC010058352018
Order Details: Other Pdf Text: 1 MHCC010126502018 Presented on : 04/10/2018 Registered on : 04/10/2018 Decided on : 29/11/2021 Duration : Y M D 03 01 25 BEFORE THE CITY CIVIL COURT, MUMBAI ( Court No.14 ) (Presided Over by S. U. Hake) SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.293 OF 2018 IN COMMERCIAL SUIT NO.672 OF 2021 (SUMMARY SUIT NO.584 OF 2018) M/s. B.D. Impex Pvt. Ltd., A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and having its Office at 207, Bharat Chambers, 12C, Baroda Street, Masjid, Mumbai400 009. And also at 109/110, Abhishek, 1st floor, Plot No.C5, Dalia Industrial Estate Off New Link Road, Andheri (W) Mumbai400 053. ..Plaintiff V/s. Mr.Vitthal Akkar, Adult, Sole proprietor of M/s. V.K.Enterprises having its address at M2/1, MIDC, Walunj, Aurangabad431136. AND 1st floor, Shree Sai Complex, Near Bus Stand, Jalna431 203. ..Defendant -- 1 of 7 -- 2 __________________________________________________ Ld. Advocate Manoj Agre for plaintiff. Ld. Advocate M.J. Bangar for defendant. ______________________________________________________ ORAL ORDER (Dated this 29th day of November 2021) 1. Summons for Judgment is taken out for decree of an amount of Rs.20,51,248/ alongwith interest. Briefly stated, plaintiff's case is as under: 2. Plaintiff is a private limited company. Plaintiff company is dealing in various kinds of steel materials. Defendant is proprietor of M/s. V.K. Enterprises. In pursuance to the purchase order placed by defendant, plaintiff company supplied the steel material to defendant. The particulars of supply of goods are as under: SR. NO. INVOICE NO DATE OF INVOICE AMOUNT 1. BDI/MUM/423/201415 02/09/2014 Rs.122162/ 2. BDI/MUM/549/201415 16/10/2014 Rs.260611/ 3. BDI/MUM/555/201415 18/10/2014 Rs.546927/ 4. BDI/MUM/650/201415 23/11/2014 Rs.988880/ 5. BDI/MUM/690/201415 08/12/2014 Rs.336636/ 6. BDI/MUM/701/201415 18/10/2014 Rs.654816/ 7. BDI/MUM/756/201415 03/01/2015 Rs.510442/ 3. After receipt of the goods, defendant made part payment of the received goods. As per terms of the invoices, payment was to be made within 60 days of receipt of goods. Defendant was liable to pay interest at the rate of 21% p.a. on the -- 2 of 7 -- 3 delayed payment. Defendant issued cheques of Rs.20 lacs alongwith letter dated 07/11/2015 with the assurance to honour these cheques. But, defendant failed to honour the same. 4. Defendant was facing financial problems, therefore, on defendant's request, time was granted for payment of the outstanding amount. Defendant agreed to pay outstanding amount by monthly installment of Rs.2 lacs starting from November 2016. Accordingly, agreement was executed on 10/10/2016. However, defendant failed to pay the outstanding amount. 5. On 06/12/2016, defendant issued cheque of Rs.02,60,442/. Said cheque was dishonoured. But, thereafter, defendant made payment of Rs.2.50 lacs. After giving credit to the payment made by defendant, an amount of Rs.18,95,774/ was due against defendant. Towards payment of outstanding amount, defendant issued seven cheques of Rs.18,75,515/. All these cheques were dishonoured on being presented for encashment. Plaintiff sent legal notice on 12/12/2017, but, defendant failed to pay the outstanding amount. Plaintiff submits that defendant is liable to pay Rs.20,51,248/ alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. Plaintiff further submits that defendant does not have any defence, therefore, he prayed to decree the suit. 6. Defendant, by filing his reply affidavit, prayed for unconditional leave to defend the suit. It is submitted that claim arises out of regular business transaction between the parties. Suit claim is made arbitrarily without having regard to the ledger -- 3 of 7 -- 4 account of parties. Parties were having regular commercial transactions and running account was maintained between the parties. 7. It is further submitted that out of Rs.60 lacs, defendant made payment of Rs.41 lacs and balance amount is only Rs.18 lacs. Defendant issued the cheques by way of security deposit. The cheques were to be presented on specific instructions of defendant, however, plaintiff presented all the cheques on 25/09/2017 without knowledge and consent of defendant. Therefore, all the cheques were referred by the bank to the drawer. It is further submitted that accounts can be settled through mediation. By making these submissions, defendant prayed for unconditional leave to defend the suit. 8. Ld. Counsel appearing for plaintiff submits that in pursuance to the purchase orders placed by defendant, plaintiff has supplied the steel material to defendant. Plaintiff has filed on record copies of invoices raised against defendant. Defendant did not dispute the receipt of goods. Defendant has issued the cheques towards legally enforceable liability. Those cheques were dishonoured. Defendant is not coming with any defence. By making these submissions, he prayed to make the Summons for Judgment absolute. 9. Defendant and his Counsel remained absent for hearing. Advocate for plaintiff gave intimation regarding hearing of the case to defendant's advocate. Accordingly, he has also filed service affidavit on 24/11/2021. Inspite of giving intimation -- 4 of 7 -- 5 about the date of hearing, defendant failed to advance arguments on Summons for judgment. 10. Record shows that plaintiff has raised invoices against supply of goods to defendant. The ledger accounts maintained by plaintiff shows that an amount of Rs.18,95,774/ was outstanding against defendant as on 28/09/2017. Defendant issued seven cheques of Rs.18,75,515/. In reply affidavit, defendant admits transaction with plaintiff. Defendant also submits that approximately an amount of Rs.41 lacs is received by plaintiff and outstanding amount is Rs.18 lacs. On perusal of reply affidavit, it is evident that defendant did not dispute receipt of goods. He is also not disputing about price of the goods, quantity and quality of goods. Defendant merely states that cheques were issued towards security and plaintiff deposited those cheques without intimation to defendant. It is not made it clear by defendant as to when security was to operate. Once, defendant admits liability to pay the amount, he cannot avoid his liability by stating that cheques were issued as a security. From the reply affidavit, it is clear as crystal that defendant has no defence for trial. He has not raised any question which require trial. 11. Plaintiff is claiming interest at the rate of 18% p.a. As per copies of invoices filed on record, plaintiff was entitled for 21% interest p.a. after due date. However, plaintiff is claiming interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on Rs.18,75,515/. As per ledger account, an amount of Rs.18,95,774/ was outstanding as on -- 5 of 7 -- 6 28.09.2017. However, plaintiff is claiming an amount of Rs.18,75,515/ which is the total of seven cheques issued by defendant. After calculating interest @ 18% p.a. on Rs.18,75,515/, the total amount comes to Rs.20,51,248/. As discussed supra, the fact disclosed in the reply affidavit does not entitle defendant to defend the suit. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled for the judgment forthwith. In the result, following order : ORDER 1. S/J No.293/2018 is made absolute. 2. Suit is decreed with costs. 3. Defendant shall pay an amount of Rs.20,51,248/ (Rs. Twenty Lacs, Fifty One Thousand and Two Hundred Forty Eight Only) along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of the suit till it's realization to plaintiff within two months. 4. Decree thus follow. 29/11/2021 S.U. HAKE JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT, GR.MUMBAI. Dictated on : 29/11/2021 Transcribed on : 30/11/2021 Signed on : 30/11/2021 -- 6 of 7 -- 7 CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”. 30/11/21 at 05.30 pm. Mrs.Tanushree C.Kamble Name of the Judge HHJ SHRI SU Hake Date of Pronouncement of judgment/order 29/11/21 Judgment and order signed by P.O. 30/11/21 Judgment/order uploaded on 30/11/21 -- 7 of 7 --
