Final Order 2

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: ..1.. Commercial Suit No.73-2019
MHCC010083132019 Registered on 24-07-2019
Transferred on : 06-08-2019
Decided on : 02/05/26
Duration : 06Y : 09M : 08D
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT, GREATER MUMBAI AT
MAZGAON
EXH-39
COMMERCIAL SUIT NO.73 OF 2019
Jaiprakash Arun Gupta, age 38 yrs.
of Mumbai, an adult Indian inhabitant, his residing
at Room No.LX-93/1/3, Shankar Chawl, Pipe Line
Road, Near Halao Pul, Kurla, Mumbai- 400 070.
]
]
]
]
]
] ..Plaintiff
Versus
Mohammad Jahangir Masood Shaikh
Age not known an adult Indian Inhabitant working
for gain with Plot No.8, Room No.96, B.K.C., Bharat
Nagar, Bandra (East) Mumbai- 400 051.
And Residing:- Flat No.204, White House, Building
No.3, S. G. Bharve Marg, Buddha Colony, Kurla (W.)
Mumbai- 400 070.
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
] Defendant
Appearance :-
Ld. Adv. Mamta Panigrahi for plaintiff.
Ld. Adv. Ashif Husain for defendant.
CORAM : SACHIN SURYAKANT PATIL,JUDGE
COURT NO.32.
DATE : 02/05/2026.
-- 1 of 6 --
..2.. Commercial Suit No.73-2019
J U D G M E N T
1) The Plaintiff, has filed the present suit against defendant for
money recovery under Commercial Court Act, 2015.
The facts in brief are as under -
2) Defendant had executed promissory note of Rs.10,00,000/-
in favour of plaintiff for valuable consideration. Defendant had agreed
to repay the amount with interest @ 18% p.a. on demand. However,
defendant did not pay the amount in spite of repeated demands.
Plaintiff sent demand notice dated 10.05.2019 to the defendant.
However, defendant did not comply with the same. Amount of
Rs.12,03,178.08/- is due from the defendant with interest @ 18% p.a.
Hence, this Suit.
3) On receipt of summons defendant appeared and filed his
written statement vide Exh. 05. According to defendant he wanted to
sell his flat no.204 at White House Building No.3, Kurla (West)
Mumbai. Plaintiff is businessman. He told him that he will advertise the
sell of flat for fetching good customers with price of Rs.1.5/- crores.
Plaintiff asked him to give authorization for publication of
advertisement. For that plaintiff obtained his signatures and thumb
impression on some papers. He is illiterate. The plaintiff has misused
those documents by showing the promissory note. He is not liable to
pay the claim amount to the plaintiff. He has not received any loan.
Hence, suit be dismissed with costs.
4) In light of rival pleadings of both the parties, issues have been
framed vide Exhibit-1/C. Thereafter, plaintiff has led his evidence.
Defendants did not adduce any evidence. I have heard the arguments
-- 2 of 6 --
..3.. Commercial Suit No.73-2019
of plaintiff at length. Defendant did not make any argument.
Thereupon, I record my decisions on all the issues for the reasons
stated as under :
Sr.
No.
ISSUES DECISIONS
1. Does plaintiff prove that defendant is
liable to pay amount of
Rs.12,03,178.08/- with interest @ 18%
per annum ?
Partly Yes.
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief as
claimed ?
Partly Yes.
3 What order, decree and costs ? As per final order.
R E A S O N S
5) The plaintiff has examined Mr. Jaiprakash Arun Gupta as PW-1
vide affidavit of evidence at Exhibit-9. Plaintiff has relied upon
following documentary evidence.
SR.
NO. DOCUMENTS EXHIBIT
1 Copy of Money Lending License 11
2 Copy of Original demand Promissory Note
dated 10.05.2018. 12
3 Copy of Form No.10 of Money Lenders Act. 13
4 Office / Carbon Copy of the Demand Notice
dated 10.05.2019. 14
5 Original Courier receipt 15 (Colly)
6 Defendants Advocate letter dated 17.05.2019 16
7 Registrar Maintain for Inspection by Plaintiff. 17
-- 3 of 6 --
..4.. Commercial Suit No.73-2019
8 Books of Accounts (Cash Book) 18
9 Books of Accounts (Ledger Book) 19
6) The defendants have not adduced any oral evidence.
AS TO ISSUE NO. 1 AND 2:
7) The plaintiff Mr. Jaiprakash Arun Gupta has deposed that,
defendant had executed promissory note of Rs.10,00,000/- in favour of
plaintiff in for valuable consideration. Defendant had agreed to repay
the amount with interest @ 18% p.a. on demand. However, defendant
did not pay the amount in spite of repeated demands. Plaintiff sent
demand notice dated 10.05.2019 to the defendant. However, defendant
did not comply with the same. Amount of Rs.12,03,178.08/- is due from
the defendant with interest @ 18% p.a.
8) Plaintiff has produced promissory notes executed by defendant on
10.05.2018, his copy of money lending licenses, books of account and
ledger book. On perusal of documents produced by plaintiff it is evident
that defendant had obtained loan of Rs.10,00,000/- from the plaintiff
and promised to pay the same on demand by executing promissory note.
9) According to defendant, he wanted to sell his flat no.204 at White
House Building No.3, Kurla (West) Mumbai. Plaintiff is businessman. He
told him that he will advertise the sell of flat for fetching good
customers with price of Rs.1.5/- crores. Plaintiff asked him to give
authorization for publication of advertisement. For that plaintiff
obtained his signatures and thumb impression on some papers. He is
illiterate the plaintiff has misused those documents by showing the
promissory note. He is not liable to pay the claim amount to the
-- 4 of 6 --
..5.. Commercial Suit No.73-2019
plaintiff. He has not received any loan. However, the defendant has not
adduced any evidence to proof his defence. Defendant and his advocate
have failed to conduct cross examination of plaintiff's witness. The
evidence of plaintiff has remain unchallenged.
10) Plaintiff is claiming interest at the rate of 18% p.a. In the
promissory note at Exhibit-12 the interest rate is mentioned as 18% p.a.
in rubber stamp. Name of plaintiff is also mentioned in the rubber
stamp. All other contents are mentioned in the hand writing and typed
version. Plaintiff has not produced any other documents to show that
defendant had agreed to pay interest @18% p.a. Therefore, the interest
@ 18% p.a. seems to be excessive. In such circumstances in my view
interest @ 9% p.a. will meet the ends of justice. Hence, while
answering point Nos.1 and 2 in partly affirmative, I pass the following
order :-
ORDER
1. Commercial Suit No.73 of 2019 is partly decreed with
costs.
2. Defendant shall pay an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-
(Rupees Ten Lakh Only) to plaintiff with interest at the
rate of 9% p.a. from 10.05.2018 till the date of
realization of the amount.
3. Decree be drawn accordingly.
(Judgment dictated and pronounced in open Court)
( Sachin Suryakant Patil )
Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court,
Mazgaon, Mumbai, Court No.32
Dated :02/05/2026
Dictated and typed on :02/05/2026
Signed by HHJ on :02/05/2026
-- 5 of 6 --
..6.. Commercial Suit No.73-2019
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date Upload Time Mahesh S. Lugade
Name of Stenographer02/05/26 5.30 p.m.
Name of the Judge (With C.R. No.) HHJ SACHIN SURYAKANT PATIL
(COURT NO.32)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT / ORDER
02/05/26
JUDGMENT / ORDER signed by P.O.
on
02/05/26
JUDGMENT / ORDER uploaded on 02/05/26
-- 6 of 6 --