- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER CHAMBER CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1812 OF 2008 SUMMONS NO.1812 OF 2008 SUMMONS NO.1812 OF 2008 IN IN IN SUIT SUIT SUIT NO.545 OF 1990 NO.545 OF 1990 NO.545 OF 1990. Food Corporation of India. ..Plaintiff. vs. Mantralaya Central Consumers Co-op. Wholesale & Retail Stores Ltd. & Ors. ..Defendants. WITH CHAMBER CHAMBER CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1749 OF 2008 SUMMONS NO.1749 OF 2008 SUMMONS NO.1749 OF 2008 IN IN IN SUIT SUIT SUIT NO.461 OF 1990 NO.461 OF 1990 NO.461 OF 1990. Food Corporation of India. ..Plaintiff. vs. Mantralaya Central Consumers Co-op. Wholesale & Retail Stores Ltd. ..Defendant. .... Mr. R.V. Govilkar, for the Plaintiff, in both Chamber Summons. Mr. S.B. Bagkar, Manager of the Plaintiff, present in person, in Chamber Summons No.1812/2008. Mr. J.M. Chodankar, for Defendant No.1, in both Chamber Summons. Mr. N.M. Shah, for Defendant Nos. 2 & 3 in Chamber Summons No.1812/2008. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM: S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 7TH JANUARY 2009 : 7TH JANUARY 2009 : 7TH JANUARY 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The plaintiff is the Food Corporation of India. The defendant no.1 is the Mantralaya Consumers Co-operative and Retail Stores Ltd. By these two chamber summons, defendant no.1 seeks condonation of - 2 - delay in taking out the chamber summons as well as filing of the written statements. 2. The plaintiff had invited tenders for sale of sub-standard rice. The said tenders were opened on 11th November 1986 and accepted on 16 December 1986. The plaintiffs communicated the acceptance to the defendant no.2 by their telegram dated 16th December 1986 and 20th December 1986 and advised them to deposit the entire costs, security deposit, octroi, sales tax, etc. within seven working days. 3. It is the plaintiffs case that the defendants failed to pay the dues within the stipulated period and committed breach of the terms and conditions of the contract. The plaintiffs have therefore filed three different suits in respect of the three tenders seeking decree and order against the defendants to pay certain amounts prayed therein to the plaintifffs @ 21% interest thereon. 4. The defendant no.1 have filed their written statment on time in one of the three suits. The defendant no.1 had through their advocate’s letter dated 11th September 2006 forwarded to the advocates for the plaintiffs, consent preceipes alongwith copies of the - 3 - written statements in the above two suits. However, the plaintiffs have not given their consent to take the written statements on record. The defendant no.1 in its affidavits in support have stated that the suit pertains to the year 1986 and in the intervening period the managing committee of the defendant no.1 had changed from time to time which led to delay in filing of the written statements The defendant no.1 have also pointed out that they have good case on merits. There is no concluded contract between the plaintiff and the defendants because of which the defendant no.1 are not entitled to seek any reliefs by way of damages as prayed in the above suits. The defendants have also submitted that it is a co-operative society, formed for the welfare of the employees working at Mantralaya. 5. This Court has considered the reasons given in the affidavit in support of the chamber summons for condonation of the delay in taking out the chamber summons and filing of the written statement. In view of the reasons given by the defendant no.1 in the said affidavit and the fact that the written statements were forwarded to the plaintiffs as far back as on 11th September 2006 (that is more than 2 years back) and the matter has not proceeded in the intervening period of more than 2 years, and further in view of the fact that - 4 - the defendant no.1 in one of the identical suits have already filed the written statement, this Court is inclined to condone the delay in taking out the chamber summons and filing of the written statement. The learned Advocate appearing for the plaintiffs has submitted to the orders of the Court. 6. Hence, I pass the following order :- (1) Delay in taking out the chamber summons as well as the filing of the written statements in the above two suits is condoned. (2) The office is directed to take the written statements of the defendant no.1 in the above two suits on record. (3) Both the chamber summons stands disposed of with no orders as to costs. [S.J.KATHAWALLA, [S.J.KATHAWALLA, [S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.] J.] J.]