SJ78-09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMONS FOR JUDGEMENT NO.78 OF 2009 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.155 OF 2009 Global Trade Finance Ltd. .. Plaintiff Versus Pradeep Kumar Saraf and Anr. .. Defendants Mr.Cyrus Ardeshir with Rajesh Talekar i/b.K.Ashar & Co. for plaintiff CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 14th September 2010. P.C.: 1] Mr.Ardeshir, learned Counsel appearing for plaintiff has fairly stated that on earlier occasion and even today that after the vakalatnama was filed, summons for judgement was taken out, registered and served on the defendants, the defendants are absent but they served a copy of the written statement. 2] However, a copy thereof being served on the plaintiff would not suffice. As per rules, the defendants must appear before the Court and file written statement/ reply and seek leave to defend. Neither there is any written statement on record nor is there any application seeking leave SJ78-09 2 to defend. Name of defendant's Advocate is appearing on board on earlier occasion and even today. None appears, though, for defendants. 2] The suit claim arises out of guarantees, copies of which are at Annexures D-1 and D-2 to the plaint. 3] It is stated that the plaintiffs are engaged in the business of providing trade finance and related services. Defendants are directors of M/s.Diamond Shipping Company Ltd. which is a borrower. The borrower had requested for certain trade finance facility which came to be granted vide letter of sanction dated 5th January 2006. This is confirmed by the borrower by board resolution dated 10th January 2006. Further, in acknowledgement of the liability the borrower executed demand promissory notes and undertakings. 4] However, as Guarantors the defendants independently guaranteed repayment of the sum lent and advanced by executing the deeds of guarantees, details of which are set out in para 5 of the plaint. SJ78-09 3 5] The facility is confirmed and even the shipment. It is stated that when the amounts became due and payable the borrowers did not respond to the demand notice. Accordingly, a demand was raised dated 24th December 2008 but the defendants did not comply with the same. 6] Mr.Ardeshir tenders compilation of original documents which is taken on record and marked "X" for identification. Having satisfied myself that the suit claim falls within the ambit of Order XXXVII Rule 2 of CPC, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit and that no part of plaintiff's claim is barred by limitation that I proceed to pass decree in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants, more particularly because there is no denial of liability nor is there any dispute raised with regard to maintainability of the suit. There is clear assertion that the suit is to recover liquidated sum of money based on deed of guarantee. 7] In the result, there will be a decree as prayed. Advocate's cost and refund of court fees as per rules. C.C. Expedited. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)