1 mss SS1726 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMARY SUIT NO. 1726 OF 2009 JUBILIANT ORGANOSYS LTD. .. PLAINTIFF Vs. ATULYA MAFATLAL .. DEFENDANT Mr. G. D. Utangale a/w B. V. Phadnis i/b Utangale & Co. for the plaintiff CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 17/12/2011 P.C. It is stated that the summons for judgment which was moved in this matter has been duly served on the defendant. The defendant has not filed any reply nor has applied for leave to defend. 2. Mr. Utangale appearing on behalf of the plaintiff states that this is a summary suit based on a written contract as evidenced by the documents annexed to the plaint. The suit is also filed on the basis of the acknowledgment of liability and the part payments which have been made 2 mss SS1726 by the defendant. The balance principal amount and interest is outstanding. The original documents are taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification. Perusal of the same shows that the Deed of Settlement has been signed by the defendant. He has also addressed a communication which is a fax message confirming his liability. He has also stated in a further letter dated 22/11/2005 that he would be forwarding the amount. That is how he has forwarded the amounts. 3. The suit is based on the agreement that the defendant has executed a personal guarantee as Chairman of Mafatlal Dyes & Chemicals Ltd. That Deed of Guarantee is also brought on record. In such circumstances, I am satisfied that the suit is maintainable as the summary suit on the basis of these written contracts and the acknowledgment of liability. 4. The claim of the plaintiff is not barred by the law of limitation on account of the part payments. 5. The defendant resides within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. Therefore, this court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. 6. The suit stands decreed as prayed. Refund of court fees to be given as per rules. Even advocate’s cost be computed as per rules. (S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)