Final Order 1

Order Details: Ex-parte Judgement
Pdf Text: 1
Jud in Summ Suit 1255/19
MHCC010123452019
Presented on : 28.11.2019
Registered on : 13.12.2019
Decided on : 07.01.2021
Duration : 02-Y. 00-M.23-D
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT OF MUMBAI
SUMMARY CIVIL SUIT NO. 1255 of 2019
CNR NO.MHCC01-012345-2019
Exh.11
Shankar Malku Annareddy
Age 39 yrs. Of Mumbai an adult Indian
inhabitant having his address at
Room No.11, Gauri Shankar Nagar,
Masrani Lane, Halav Pool Road,
Kurla West Mumbai – 400 070. ...Plaintiff.
Versus
Janardhan Hiraman Lokhande
Age not known of Mumbai, an adult
Indian inhabitant, working for gain with
AO (swm) conservancy dept,Shantinagar Industria
Plot Rd, H/East Ward, Vakola, Santacruz (E)
400 055 EC NO: 4083292 ...Defendant.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI. KISHORE M.JAISWAL
(C.R. NO.14)
DATE : 7th DAY OF JANUARY,2021
-- 1 of 6 --
2
Jud in Summ Suit 1255/19
Ld. Advocate Ramesh Jain for the plaintiff
None for the defendant.
JUDGMENT
( Delivered on this 7th day of January, 2021)
This is a suit for recovery of an amount.
2. The factual Matrix:-
Both the plaintiff and defendant are resident of Mumbai. It
is the case of plaintiff that the defendant on 2nd September, 2018, had
executed demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff for valuable
consideration of Rs.2,50,000/-(Rupees Two lakh fifty thousand only).
By virtue of demand promissory note the defendant had promised to
pay Rs.2,50,000/-(Rupees Two lakh fifty thousand only) along with
interest @ 18% p.a. It is the case of plaintiff that upon the demand, the
defendant has failed and neglected to pay the demanded amount. The
plaintiff was then constrained to issue notice through an advocate on
30th July, 2019 but the defendant failed to comply with the same. Thus
the plaintiff is claiming the demand promissory note amount of
Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two lakh fifty thousand ) along with interest @
18%p.a.on same which is calculated from 2nd September, 2018 till filing
of suit total amounting to Rs.2,97,465.75/- (Rupees Two lakh ninety
seven thousand, four hundred sixty five and paise seventy five only).
The interest @ 18% p.a. on the said amount from the date of demand
till filing of suit comes to Rs.47,465.75/- (Rupees Forty seven thousand
four hundred sixty five and paise seventy five only). Thus the suit is
preferred for recovery of total amount of Rs.2,97,465.75/- (Rupees Two
lakh ninety seven thousand four hundred sixty five and paise seventy
five only) along with the interest on the principal amount of
-- 2 of 6 --
3
Jud in Summ Suit 1255/19
Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two lakh fifty thousand only) from the date of
institution of suit till its realisation.
3. The suit is proceeded exparte against defendant as per
order dated 17/2/2020
4. To prove its case the plaintiff has filed affidavit in lieu of
examination in chief as per Exh.4 and reiterated the contents of the
plaint vide list Exh.5. The plaintiff has filed the following documents.
Sr.
No.
Description of the documents. Exhibit
No.
1. Promissory Note dated 2nd September 2018. Exh.6
2. Plaintiff’s Advocates’ letter dated 30th July 2019
to the plaint alongwith the postal records in
connection with the transaction and delivery
thereof.
Exh.7
3. Money Lender Licence. Exh.8
4. Forms under Bombay Money Lending Act. Exh.9
5. Books of Accounts. Exh.10
5. All the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence has
remained unchallenged and uncontroverted.
6. On perusal of money lending licence Exh.8 it is established
fact that the plaintiff is having Government license to lend the money
on interest. On the promissory note Exh.6 there is signature of the
defendant across the revenue stamp and it would be apposite to
reproduce the first para of Exh.6 which reads as under;
“On demand I Jointly and severally promise to pay Shree/M/s.
euhysUMj yk- ua RBE 1530 Jh- ‘kadj eydw vUukjsMMh] or order the sum of
Rs.2,50,000/- in words Rupees nksu yk[k iUukl gtkj QDr together with
interest thereon at the rate of 18% percent per Annum for value.
-- 3 of 6 --
4
Jud in Summ Suit 1255/19
Received in Cash/ money is to be Repaid on demand in or out of
Mumbai.”
Revenue Stamp
Name: tufnu fgjke.k yks[kaMs sd/-
7. From the aforesaid contents it is proved that the defendant
had agreed to pay Rs.2,50,000/- on demand at the rate of 18%p.a. to
the plaintiff. The oral testimony is supported by the document
specifically demand promissory note Exh.6, the document Exh.7
(demand notice) establishes that the plaintiff has demanded the said
amount along with interest but defendant has failed to make the
payment. Vide Exh.8, the plaintiff is holding valid licence to carry on
business of money lending , Exh.9 proves that all relevant formalities
were completed. The document Exh.10 which are the books of account
maintained during regular course of business by the plaintiff proves that
the entry regarding the said amount was at serial no.12. All these
documents remained unchallenged as defendant did not turned up after
service of summons. Therefore the plaintiff has proved its claim
against the defendant.
8. So far as the interest claimed from the date of promissory
note till institution of the suit is concerned the document Exh.6 clarifies
that the agreed rate of interest was 18% p.a. and therefore in my
opinion the defendant is liable to pay the said interest. So far as the
interest after institution of the suit is concerned, in my opinion Section
34 of the CPC will come into picture and considering the fact that it was
the commercial transaction, in my opinion the interest which generally
the nationalized banks are advancing in relation to the commercial
-- 4 of 6 --
5
Jud in Summ Suit 1255/19
transaction would apply which would be 8% p.a. also needs to be
granted in the interest of justice. Hence , I pass the following order
ORDER
1. The suit is decreed with costs.
2. The defendant do pay to the plaintiff an amount of
Rs.2,97,465.75ps./-(Rupees Two lakh ninety seven thousand four
hundred sixty five and paise seventy five only) with further interest @
8% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.2,50,000/-(Rupees Two lakh
fifty thousand only) from the date of institution of the suit till its
realization.
3. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
4. Court fees be refunded as per rules.
(Kishore M. Jaiswal )
Judge,
Date:07/01/2021. City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai.
Dictated on : 07/01/2021
Transcribed on : 07/01/2021
Signed on :
-- 5 of 6 --
6
Jud in Summ Suit 1255/19
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE: 08.01.2021 NAME OF STENOGRAPHER(GI)
Mrs. V.V.Mhatre
TIME: 4.35p.m.
Name of the Judge (With Court
room no.)
Shri Kishore M. Jaiswal
(Court Room No.14)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGEMENT/ORDER
07.01.2021
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
08..01.2021
JUDGEMENT/ORDER uploaded on 08.01.2021
-- 6 of 6 --