1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMARY SUIT NO. 2348 OF 2008 Mahindra Intertade Limited ....Plaintiff Versus Esbee Exim Pvt. Ltd. ....Defendant Miss Aditi Chavan i/b.M/s.Ashwin Ankhad & Associate, Advocate for the Plaintiff. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATE : 29th JANUARY, 2010. P.C. : Heard learned Counsel for the Plaintiff. None appears on behalf of the Defendant, though served. 2. The above suit is filed under the provisions of Order 37 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,42,495.88 paise with interest at the rate of 18% p.a.. The Defendant is served with writ of summons alongwith true copy of the plaint and affidavit of service to that effect is also filed alongwith the postal acknowledgment duly signed by the Defendant. Inspite of due service, none appears on behalf of the Defendant and therefore, the suit is placed today, before me under the caption "For Exparte Decree". 2 3. The Plaintiff is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and dealing in consumer products including toys and other allied products for children. It is the case of the Plaintiff that during the course of their business they have sold, supplied and delivered the toys to the Defendant as per the orders placed and thereafter raised their invoices. Initially, the Defendant used to make payment promptly but after winning confidence they started delaying the payments. The Defendant ultimately defaulted in making payments in respect of the following invoices and have remained in arrears amounting to Rs. 1,42,495.88 paise: Sr.N o. Invoice No. Date Due Date of Payment Branch Office of the Defendants where goods were supplied Amount (Rs.) 1 1014900039 08.04.05 07.05.05 Mumbai 23,491.85 2 1014900040 08.04.05 07.05.05 Mumbai 3,095.65 3 1014900635 24.05.05 23.06.05 Bangalore 12,431.69 4 1004914538 07.02.05 06.03.05 Mumbai 14,893.22 Part Payment 5 1014900521 13.05.05 12.06.05 Bangalore 26,919.27 Part Payment 6 1014909114 24.02.07 08.04.07 Kolkatta 53,446.81 7 1014909105 23.02.07 07.04.07 Kolkatta 8,217.39 Part Payment 1,42,495.88 3 4. Inspite of repeated requests, the Defendant avoided and neglected to make payment on one pretext or the other and therefore, by an letter dated 11th October, 2007, the Defendant was requested to settle their account on or before 26th October, 2007. However, no reply was given by the Defendant to the said letter. The Plaintiff again issued legal notice to the Defendant on 12th March, 2008 calling upon them to make a payment of the outstanding amount. The notice was received by the Defendant, however, payment was not made and therefore, the Plaintiff was constrained to file the above suit. 5. The Plaintiff has tendered compilation of original documents. I have gone through the original documents viz: 1. Invoice No.1014900039 dated 8th April 2005 for Rs. 23,491.85. 2. Invoice No.1014900040 dated 8th April 2005 for Rs.3,095.65. 3. Invoice No.1014900635 dated 24th May, 2005 for Rs.12,431.69. 4. Invoice No.1014914538 dated 7th February 2005 (Part payment received and for balance amount due and payable under the Invoice) for Rs. 14,893.22. 5. Invoice No.1014900521 dated 13th May 2005 (Part payment received and for balance amount due and payable under the Invoice) for Rs.26,919.27. 6. Invoice No. 1014909114 dated 24th February, 2007 (Part payment received and for balance amount due and payable under the Invoice) for Rs. 53,446.81. 4 7. Invoice No. 1014909105 dated 3rd February, 2007 (Part payment received and for balance amount due and payable under the Invoice) for Rs. 8,217.39. 8. Copy of the letter dated 11th October 2007 from the Plaintiffs to the Defendants. 9. Statement of account. 10.Legal notice dated 13th March 2008 served on the Defendants along with acknowledgments received from Defendants’ Kolkatta and Bangalore offices. The above said original documents support the Plaintiff’s case. In that view of the matter and especially in the light of provisions of Order 37 Rule 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Defendant deemed to have admitted the averment made in the plaint. The suit is accordingly decreed in terms of prayer clause (a). (R. V. MORE, J.)