1 rma IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. APPEAL NO. 403 OF 2009 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 3185 OF 2006 Satishchandra Maheswhar Soman .. Appellant Vs Alta Leasing and Finance Limited and Ors .. Respondents Mr. Nitesh Bhutekar, Advocate i/b Mr. Uday Warunjikar for the Appellant Mrs. Sheela Pathak i/b M/s. Pathak Associates for the Respondents CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE : 28th January, 2010 P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Warunjikar, the learned counsel for the Appellant – Original Defendant No. 2. 2. This appeal arises from the judgment and decree dated 17.06.2008 passed in Summary Suit No. 3185 of 2006. The operative part of the impugned order is as under : a) Defendants jointly or severally do pay to the Plaintiffs Rs. 14,13,092/-. b) Defendants jointly or severally do pay to the plaintiff 6.app403-09 2 interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization, on Rs. 7,89,470/- c) Defendants jointly or severally do pay to plaintiff costs of the suit. 3. The Plaintiff-Company had advanced a loan by way of a hire purchase agreement to Defendant No. 1 company so as to buy certain machines. The first such agreement was dated 14.07.2000 for a sum of Rs. 9,22,400/- and another lease agreement was signed on 27.08.1999 for a loan of Rs. 7,27,717/-. The vendor by name M/s. Vinita Engineering Company supplied these machines to Defendant No. 1 against the hire purchase agreement signed between the Plaintiff and Defendants. Defendant No. 2 was, at the relevant time, a director of Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 3 was the guarantor. The last installment of loan from the hire purchase agreement was paid on 11.03.2005 for a sum of Rs. 28,000/- and in regard to the lease agreement, an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid on 16.09.2004 and thereafter, Defendant No. 1 did not pay any further installments and therefore, on or about 30.06.2006, the Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 14,13,092/- with permissible interests. 4. The Plaintiff had taken out Summons for Judgment No. 131 of 6.app403-09 3 2007 against Defendant No. 2 as the said Defendant had filed Vakalatnama through his Advocate and Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 had not responded. In spite of causing appearance through the Advocate, Defendant No. 2 did not take any steps to file written statement and defend the suit or dispute the claim amount on any grounds. The learned trial Judge, therefore, proceeded to hear and decide the Summons for Judgment on its own merits. 5. It was noted that the Summons for Judgment was decided on merits on 09.07.2007 and Defendant No. 2 was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- within sixteen weeks. This order came to be challenged in Appeal No. 77 of 2008, which was partly allowed on 26.04.2008 by reducing the deposit amount to Rs. 5,00,000/- instead of Rs. 7,50,000/- and the deposit was directed to be made within two weeks. This order dated 26.04.2008 was carried in Special Leave Petition No. 12536 of 2008, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 15.05.2008. However, the time to deposit Rs. 5 Lacs was extended by four weeks. Admittedly, this deposit was also not made and subsequent application for variation was also rejected. 6. It was noted by the learned trial Judge that the Plaintiff had placed 6.app403-09 4 on record two different receipts issued by the vendor for supply of machinery i.e M/s Vinita Engineering Company. The first receipt was dated 20.07.2000 and the second receipt was dated 25.09.2000. Both these receipts certified that the vendor had received Rs. 3,00,000/-, Rs. 3,75,000/- and Rs. 1,47,400/- towards the supply of machinery to Defendant No. 1. This was confirmed and admitted by Defendant No. 1. Defendant No.1 also admitted that the machines were received by them. 7. In the absence of written statement from any of the Defendants, the averments made in the plaint went unchallenged and in the Summary Suit, the Plaintiffs were, therefore, entitled for the reliefs sought for in the plaint. Affidavit of evidence was also filed by the Plaintiff along with certain documents and the learned trial Judge noted that on the basis the of said documents, the claim of Rs. 14,13,092/- was established. On the issue of interest, the learned trial Judge thought it fit to levy interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 7,89,470/- from the date of filing of the suit till its realization. 8. In the arguments advanced before us, no submissions have been made so as to point out that the decree suffers from any errors in 6.app403-09 5 law or any facts and therefore, even though the Summary Suit is decided finally by the learned trial Judge, we do not find any reason to entertain this Appeal. 9. Hence, the Appeal is dismissed in limine. [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] [B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.] 6.app403-09