1 sj166.10.sxw ssm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 166 OF 2010 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 216 OF 2010 M/s. Trinity Electric Syndicate (Switchgear) a registered partnership firm having its office at 154, Shamaldas Gandhi Marg, Mumbai 400 002 through its partner Shri Deepak N. Khambati. ......Plaintiffs. Vs. M/s. Ravindra Enterprises, through its proprietor Mr. Ravindra M. Dhekne, Indian Adult, Age 52 years, Occupation-Business having its office Cum Residence at 551, Shaniwar Peth, Opp. Kanyashala, Pune-411 030 ......Defendants. Mr. Heeralal Chaturvedi for the Plaintiffs. Mr. R.N. Sukhija for the Defendants. CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. JUDGMENT RESERVED ON :- 2 SEPTEMBER 2011 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :- 20 SEPTEMBER 2011. JUDGMENT:- The Plaintiffs have filed the Summary Suit against the 2 sj166.10.sxw ssm Defendants for a sum of `26,43,151/- towards due and payable principal amount and `24,01,314/- towards the outstanding interest @ 24% p.a. on principal amount from 6 December 2006 to 11 December 2009. The Suit is dated 9 December 2009, as the Defendants failed to make the payment though received the goods from time to time and acknowledge the liability in writing by endorsement dated 13 December 2006 so far as the principal amount is concerned. 2 The Plaintiffs have taken out the Summons for Judgment on 19 April 2010. The Defendants filed the reply and resisted and denied the claims as well as the signatures. Considering the averments made the delay in filing the reply is condoned. 3 The Plaintiffs along with the averments, placed on record the purchase orders and invoices to justify the receipt of the delivery of goods without any objection by the Defendants from time to time. The transactions were entered into since December 2006. Towards the liability, the Defendants in fact issued eight cheques in the name of Plaintiffs as a part payment in the month of November and December 2006 for `24,39,426/-. Those cheques were bounced, therefore, four 3 sj166.10.sxw ssm Criminal Cases were required to be initiated by the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs also placed on record the confirmation certificate filed by the Chartered Accountant showing outstanding debit balance in the name of Defendants as on 31 March 2007 and 31 March 2009. 4 The Defendants in their reply though denied even the signatures which were recorded on tax invoices and other documents for the first time in their notice and reply, as on some of the invoices signatures were missing, the contention that they never received any goods at any point of time and invoices so filed on the record are false and fabricated, has no substance. 5 The Defendants admittedly towards the liability issued the cheques so referred above, which itself shows that the goods were received and the payments were also made. Some of the cheques were also honoured. As the cheques were dishonoured for the balance amount, the cases were filed by the Plaintiffs which was contested by the Defendants. This also falsify the case of the Defendants that they never received the goods and/or the documents and the signatures are false and fabricated. 4 sj166.10.sxw ssm 6 Acknowledgment dated 13 December 2006 whereby the Defendants acknowledge, admit and confirm that on 12 December 2006, the principal amount of ` 26,43,151/- was due and payable on account of settlement between the parties. The Defendants also undertake to make the payment within three months from the date of the acknowledgment on the letter issued by the Plaintiffs which was received by the Defendants. The supporting Accounts Ledger read with acknowledgment so referred above and the list of the Criminal cases, in my view, are sufficient to consider the case of the Plaintiffs to grant the Summons for Judgment as prayed. The defence, therefore, so raised by the Defendants, in the present facts and circumstances is false and with only an intention to delay the payment though duly acknowledged from time to time. 7 The claim with regard to rate of interest @ 24% p.a. in the present case on the basis of invoices, where the rate of interest is printed as 24% p.a., in my view, cannot be stated to be agreed rate of interest as at the time of acknowledging the liability as referred above, the Defendants accepted the principal amount only and not agreed rate of interest so claimed. The Plaintiffs have also not mentioned the rate of interest in the said letter, except this print. Therefore, in the 5 sj166.10.sxw ssm present facts and circumstances, I am inclined to grant that the Plaintiffs are entitled to the principal amount of ` 26,43,151/- but the rate of interest shall be @ 9% p.a. from 6 December 2006 till the realization. 8 Resultantly, the following order- 1 The Defendants to pay to the Plaintiffs the principal amount of `26,43,151/- However, the rate of interest shall be @ 9% p.a. from 6 December 2006 on the principal amount, till realization. 2 The Summons for Judgment is allowed to the above extent. The decree be drawn accordingly. 3 There shall be no order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)