:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 1036 OF 2003 APPEAL NO. 1036 OF 2003 APPEAL NO. 1036 OF 2003 IN IN IN SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 935 OF 2001 SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 935 OF 2001 SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 935 OF 2001 IN IN IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 3248 OF 1992 SUMMARY SUIT NO. 3248 OF 1992 SUMMARY SUIT NO. 3248 OF 1992 Vikamshi Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. ..Appellants versus Bank of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. S. Nagadevla i/b. Mehta & Co. for the Appellants Mr. Avinash Thakkar for the Respondents. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE and CORAM : S. A. BOBDE and CORAM : S. A. BOBDE and A. V. MOHTA, JJ. A. V. MOHTA, JJ. A. V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE : 26TH MARCH, 2008 DATE : 26TH MARCH, 2008 DATE : 26TH MARCH, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. This Appeal is filed by the defendant No.4 against whom the learned Single Judge has decreed the Summary Suit filed by the plaintiff. 2. The plaintiff bank filed a Summary Suit in respect of a Bill of Exchange drawn by the defendant No.1, supplier of the goods in favour of the defendant No.4, the appellant who received the goods. There is no dispute that the bank had :2: discounted the bill and has made payment to the defendant No.1 on behalf of the defendant No.4. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Single Judge ought not to have decreed the Summary Suit in view of the fact that the defendant No.1 has taken back the goods from the appellant- defendant No.4 on the ground that the goods were found to be defective. Firstly, we have no evidence that the goods were in fact taken back and secondly even if the goods are said to have been taken back, we do not see how it affects the rights of the bank which has admittedly discounted the bill and made payment to the defendant No.1 on behalf of the defendant No.4. 3. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the suit is delayed, this point is not argued before the learned Single Judge. 4. In the circumstances, we find no merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed. (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) :3: (A. V. MOHTA, J.) (A. V. MOHTA, J.) (A. V. MOHTA, J.)