acd 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 406 OF 2007 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 1332 OF 2007 M/s Spacetech Equipments And Structural Pvt. Ltd. ... Plaintiff. Vs. M/s SSP Pvt. Ltd. ....Defendant. ---- Mr. Tarun Kumar Sinha, fo the Plaintiff. Mr. T.J. Pandian, for the Dependent. ---- CORAM: S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED: 27TH JULY 2009. P.C. 1. The suit is filed to a recover a sum of Rs.19,72,939/- with interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till payment. 2. The suit is based, inter alia, upon a dishonoured cheque drawn by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff in the sum of Rs.19,66,032/- dated 5th April, 2004. 3. The circumstances in which the cheque was issued is important . A contract was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant for the supply of certain machinery. Disputes and differences arose between the parties in respect of the balance payment due by the defendant to the acd 2 plaintiff. Ultimately the dispute was settled at a meeting in terms of a writing dated 26th March 2004. The writing, after setting out the various claims states:- “It has been agreed by both SES and SSP that the balance amount is Rs.19,66,032/- as ‘FULL AND FINAL AMOUNT Against above work. SSP have paid above balance amount vide cheque no.577475 dated 5/4/2004”. 4. That the writing was signed and executed by both the parties and that the cheque was issued is not disputed. 5. The defence is that the plaintiff had committed defaults under the contract. What is important to note, however, is that all the alleged defaults are prior to 26th March 2004. By virtue of the said writing, all disputes and differences between the parties to the suit stood crystallised by the terms thereof. It is not open to the defendant to reopen the same. 6. Faced with this, it was contended that the writing was executed under pressure. It is difficult to accept the case of pressure on parties such as these. The particulars thereof are not convincing. 7. It was submitted that the suit is barred by limitation. The suit was filed on 3rd April 2007 i.e. within a period of three years from the date of issuance of the said cheque dated 5th April 2004. 8. It was submitted that this court has no jurisdiction in view of the clause (a). Clause (a), however, does not exclude the jurisdiction of courts in acd 3 other places. A material part of the cause of action has arisen in Mumbai. Leave under Clause XII is granted by this court and the same is not revoked. 9. In the circumstances, there is no defence to the claim in suit. 10 (A) Leave to defend granted to the Defendant conditional upon the Defendant depositing in this Court a sum of Rs.25 lacs within twelve weeks from today. In the event the Defendant deposits the aforesaid amount, the suit to stand transferred to the list of Commercial Causes. The Defendants to file their written statement within thirty days. Discovery and Inspection withinn four weeks thereafter. In the event the Defendant fails to deposit the aforesaid amount, liberty to the Plaintiffs to apply for further orders. On the said deposit being made, the Prothonotary and Senior Master to invest the same in any nationalised bank initially for a period of two years and shall renew the same thereafter for a period of one year from time to time. 10 (B) The defendant shall have the option instead of depositing the said amount, to furnish a bank guarantee of a Nationalised Bank to the satisfaction of the Prothonotary and Senior Master in the sum of Rs.25 lacs. Such guarantee should also guarantee interest at 18% per annum from the date of the deposit till encashment, if any. The rate of interest is only ad-hoc and shall be subject to the final order in the suit. The bank guarantee should acd 4 be valid upto the date of the disposal of the suit and for a period of twelve weeks thereafter. 11. Summons for Judgment stands disposed of accordingly.