1 apeal248-11.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.248 OF 2011 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1122 OF 2011 IN SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.520 OF 2009 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.2600 OF 2009 Dr.Shwetank Jain ..Appellant Vs Satyam Investment & Finance Corporation ..Respondents -- Mr.Mayur Khandeparkar i/b.Mr.Pankaj Shah, for appellant. Mr.S.A.Bhagwat with Mr.S.S.Kumbhar i/b.Negi & Associates, for respondent. -- CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 22 nd JUNE, 2011 P.C: Admittedly, there is a Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the parties. Admittedly, the petitioner has committed default in payment of the amount of loan. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as after payment of the second installment, the plaintiff did not withdraw the complaint, the appellant will not be liable to pay the third installment. He relied upon Section 51 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. 2 apeal248-11.odt 2] The liability to pay does not arise from Memorandum of Understanding. The liability arose because loan was received by the appellant. The appellant committed default in repayment of loan amount. Even the cheques given for repayment were dishonoured and, therefore, criminal complaints were filed by the respondent/original plaintiff. Merely because payment of second installment is made and one criminal complaint is not withdrawn, the liability of defendant to pay the amount which he had taken as loan will not disappear. We see no substance in the Appeal. Appeal is rejected. Notice of Motion No.1122 of 2011 stands disposed of. [R.G.KETKAR, J.] [D.K.DESHMUKH, J.]