- 1 - 29.sj.68.2011 ss.135.11 skt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.68 OF 2011 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.135 OF 2011 Vodafone Essar Ltd. ..Plaintiffs -Versus- Enercon India Ltd. ..Defendants .......... Mr.Punit B. Anand for the Plaintiff. Mr.Mayur Khandeparkar a/w. Mr.Lokhandwalla i/b Lokhandwalla & Co. for the Defendants. .......... CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 25TH JULY 2011. P.C. 1 Leave to amend the typographical error in the prayer by amending the amount from Rs.15,565=06 to 15,21,565=06. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2 The plaintiffs seek to recover an amount of Rs.18,97,495=84 together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the amount of Rs. 15,21,565=06. - 2 - 29.sj.68.2011 ss.135.11 3 The defendants admit having entered into an agreement for the use of the plaintiff’s mobile network services. They admit that their employee for, whose benefit the services have been availed of, utilized the roaming services. The employee travelled abroad between 18th June 2009 to 29th June 2009. The defendants contend that the bill of almost 12,00,000/- for the aforesaid period is exorbitant. The subscribers however are aware of the fact that roaming charges are very high. 4 Mr.Khandeparkar invited my attention to certain defects in the bill. One such defect is the failure to mention the usage in the bills on certain dates. The defence, however is not well founded. The usage being a eight digit figure could not fit into the columns provided. That the usage for GPRS services is stipulated in KBs is mentioned in the bill itself. This usage is at the rate of Rs.550 per 10 KB. Once that is clear, it is easy to understand as to how such a large bill was issued. 5 In the course of correspondence, the defendants requested for certain information including as to the sites accessed but the same was not provided by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are not bound to provide every such detail. This is especially so considering the fact that the employee, who had availed of the services, has not filed the affidavit denying the usage as stated in the bill. - 3 - 29.sj.68.2011 ss.135.11 6 It is contended that he has not filed an affidavit as he was not impleaded. 7 It was not necessary to implead him. In view of the subscriber agreement, the defendant is liable for the bills in respect of the services availed of by their employee. It specifically states that the Company i.e. the defendants will be responsible for all the payments. 8 It was contended that this Court has no jurisdiction in view of the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. That point is however covered by the defendants by my judgment dated 23rd July 2009 in Summons for Judgment No.116 of 2008 in Summary Suit No.2708 of 2007. If the judgment is incorrect, the defendants’ remedy is to file an appeal. 9 In the course of correspondence, the defendants had agreed to pay 50% of the bills. 10 The Summons for Judgment is therefore disposed of by the following order :- i) Leave to defend granted to the Defendants conditional upon the Defendant depositing in this Court a sum of Rs.19,00,000/- within twelve weeks from today. - 4 - 29.sj.68.2011 ss.135.11 ii) In the event the Defendant deposits the aforesaid amount, the suit to stand transferred to the list of Commercial Causes. The Defendants to file a written statement within thirty days. Affidavit of documents within six weeks thereafter. Discovery and inspection forthwith thereafter. iii) On the said deposit being made, the Prothonotary and Senior Master to invest the same in any nationalized bank initially for a period of two years and thereafter for like periods of two years each. iv) In the event the Defendants fail to deposit the aforesaid amount, liberty to the Plaintiff to apply for further orders. (v) It would be open to the Defendants to furnish a bank guarantee of a nationalized bank in the sum of Rs. 19,00,000/- together with interest from the date of the guarantee till its encashment, if any at 10% p.a. The rate of interest is only ad-hoc and shall be subject to the final orders at the hearing of the suit. Summons for Judgment stands disposed of accordingly. -