Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: Sum Suit 1014 of 2019 .. J/1 .. Judgment
MHCC010093852019 Presented on : 11.09.2016
Registered on : 16.09.2019
Decided on : 04.04.2026
Duration : 06 Y : 06 M : 23 D
Exhibit : 05
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MAZGAON
SUMMARY SUIT NO.1014 OF 2019
Seema Nandlal Talreja,
Adult, Indian Inhabitant of Bombay,
Aged : 45 years, carrying on business at 34,
Dariya Mahal-A, 80, Nepeansea Road,
Mumbai – 400 006.
...Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. Cinnic Fashions India Pvt. Ltd.,
A Company registered under the Companies Act,
1956, carrying on business at 20, Ashish Ind. Estate,
Gokhale Road (South), Dadar (West),
Mumbai – 400 025.
And at
1303/1304, Shankeshwar Tower, Sudha Park Shanti
Path, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai – 400 077.
2. Harshad Shantilal Mehta,
Adult, Indian Inhabitant of Bombay, Age not known,
Carrying on business and residing at 1303/1304,
Shankeshwar Tower, Sudha Park Shanti Path,
Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai – 400 077.
3. Neepa Harshad Mehta,
Adult, Indian Inhabitant of Bombay, Age not known,
Carrying on business and residing at 1303/1304,
Shankeshwar Tower, Sudha Park Shanti Path,
Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai – 400 077.
…Defendants
Appearances :
Adv. Kavita Lalwani : for Plaintiff.
Adv. Nikhil Bafna : for Defendant Nos.2 & 3.
-- 1 of 6 --
Sum Suit 1014 of 2019 .. J/2 .. Judgment
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
N. B. LAVTE, (C.R.No.83)
DATE : 4th April, 2026
J U D G M E N T
(Ex-parte)
This is a suit under order Order XXXVII, Rule.2 of C.P.C. for
recovery of an amount of Rs.35,430/- alongwith further interest of 18%
p.a on principal amount of Rs.25,000/- based on demand bill of
exchange.
2] The brief facts necessary to decide the suit is that:
The defendants is a company registered under the
Companies Act, 1956. The defendant Nos.2 and 3 are its directors. On
14.09.2016 defendant No.1 for valuable consideration drew Demand
Bill Exchange on defendant Nos.2 and 3 in favour of plaintiff for a sum
of Rs.1,50,000/-. It was accepted by defendant Nos.2 and 3. The
amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was advanced to defendants by cheque
No.042862 drawn on Union Bank of India dated 14.09.2016 of
Rs.1,50,000/-.
3. It is her further case that, defendants repaid Rs.1,25,000/-
by five cheques. On 15.05.2017, she presented the demand bill of
exchange for payment of balance sum of Rs.25,000/- to defendants,
however, it was dishonoured. The defendant No.3 handed over cheque
No.000039 dated 05.08.2019 of Rs.25,000/- drawn on Bank of Baroda,
Marine Drive. When deposited, it returned with remark ‘funds
insufficient’ on 06.08.2019. Again on 08.08.2019 defendant No.2 gave
cheque No.025764 of Rs.25,000/- dated 08.08.2019 drawn on Oriental
Bank of Commerce, Dadar (W). When deposited it returned with
remark ‘funds insufficient’ vide intimation dated 09.08.2019. On
-- 2 of 6 --
Sum Suit 1014 of 2019 .. J/3 .. Judgment
21.08.2019, legal notice was issued. Though defendants received the
notice, they failed to pay the amount. Hence, suit.
4. The writ of summons was duly served and defendants
appeared. The plaintiff application (Exh.04) praying for permission to
withdraw suit against defendant No.1 as it went into liquidation.
Permission was granted. The plaintiff filed SJ No.114/2023. However,
no any reply was filed by defendant Nos.2 and 3. Therefore, by an order
dated 04.11.2024 the SJ was directed to proceed without reply. On
17.01.2026 order was passed wherein in view of the submission of Adv.
Lalwani and as per Order 37, R.3(6)(a) of C.P.C., the matter was posted
for judgment.
5. The plaintiff filed the original documents. Heard Adv.
Lalwani for plaintiff. First of all, there is no any reply filed by defendant
Nos.2 and 3 to SJ No.114/2023. If that being so, in that event, O.37,
R.3(6)(a) comes into picture, wherein it provides that if the defendant
failed to apply for leave to defend in that event, the plaintiff shall be
entitled to judgment forthwith. Apart from it, the promissory note
reveals the seal of defendant No.1 and signature of defendant No.2. It is
accepted by defendant Nos.2 and 3 as their signatures appears as
acceptors. Thus, execution of demand bill of exchange is proved. The
defendants repaid Rs.1,25,000/-, whereas, Rs.25,000/- remained
outstanding. The suit is lodged on 11.09.2019 which is within
limitation.
6. As regards the liability of defendant Nos.2 and 3 as
acceptors in view of defendant No.1 gone into liquidation, Adv. Lalwani
placed reliance on the authority of
Ashok Mohansingh Bajaj , H.U.F. vs.
Elegent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Ors., 2000 (2) MH. L.J.855. In para 9 of
the said judgment, the Hon’ble High Court held,
-- 3 of 6 --
Sum Suit 1014 of 2019 .. J/4 .. Judgment
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the drawer of
bill of exchange is the 1st defendant-company, viz., Elegant
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. which is a sick industrial company and
therefore, proceedings in the suit could not continue any longer
against the 1st defendant-company, but so far as the 2nd defendant
is concerned, it is an acceptor of the bill of exchange and is
independently liable as the principal debtor under Section 37 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 22 cannot operate
against the 2nd defendant or their partners.
7. By holding so the Hon’ble High Court made the summons
for judgment absolute against the defendant Nos.2, 3 and 5 and
dismissed as withdrawn against defendant Nos.1 and 4. Similar is the
case in hand wherein the defendant No.1 is the drawer of bill of
exchange, whereas, defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the acceptors. Therefore,
even though defendant No.1 went into liquidation, defendant Nos.2 and
3 are liable as principal debtors u/Sec.37 of the NI Act.
8. Therefore, considering the mandate of O.37, R.3(6)(a) of
C.P.C and the discussion above, the suit is liable to be decreed. The
plaintiff claimed interest of 18% p.a which do not find place in the bill
of exchange. Therefore, I am of the view that interest @ 12% p.a on the
principal amount of Rs.25,000/- from the date of filing of the suit till
realization would be reasonable rate of interest. In the result, I proceed
to pass following order.
ORDER
1. The Summary Suit No.1014 of 2019 is decreed with costs.
2. The defendants are jointly and severally directed to pay to plaintiff
an amount of Rs.35,430/- (Rs. Thirty Five Thousand Four Hundred
and Thirty only) with 12% p.a on the principal amount of
Rs.25,000/- from the date of filing of the suit till realization.
3. Summons for Judgment No.114 of 2023 is disposed of accordingly.
-- 4 of 6 --
Sum Suit 1014 of 2019 .. J/5 .. Judgment
4. The decree be drawn up accordingly.
5. The R & P be sent to record department.
( N. B. Lavte )
Judge, (C.R.No.83)
Dt.:04.04.2026. City Civil Court, Mazgaon,
MUMBAI
Dictated on : 04.04.2026
Transcribed on : 06.04.2026
checked on : 06.04.2026
Signed on : 06.04.2026.
-- 5 of 6 --
Sum Suit 1014 of 2019 .. J/6 .. Judgment
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
06.04.2026 at 5.45 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
(Mrs. Manisha Srinath)
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge H.H.J.Shri. N. B. Lavte
(COURT ROOM NO.83)
Date of pronouncement of
judgment/order
04.04.2026
Judgment/order signed by P.O. on 06.04.2026
Judgment/order uploaded on 06.04.2026
-- 6 of 6 --