1 sj348-10.sxw pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Summons for Judgment No.348 of 2008. in Summary Suit No. 2567 of 2008 M/s. Nipa Offset Printers .. Plaintiffs v/s. M/s. Kopran Ltd, & Anr. ..Defendants Mr.S.D.Mogre for the Plaintiffs. Ms.Gunjan Shah i/b. Arvind Rathod & Co. for the Defendants CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 28th September , 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard learned Counsel on both sides. Plaintiffs have instituted this suit for recovery of Rs.1,64,443/- as and by way of principal amount and Rs.65,235/- as and by way of interest at the rate of 24% per annum as set out in particulars of claim. According to plaintiffs between 31.3.2006 to 8.7.2006 goods worth Rs.1,64,443/- were delivered to the defendant no.2 at the request of defendant no.1 vide 5 invoices as set out in the plaint. Though the suit is filed against defendant no.2 for recovery of principal amount, the summons for judgment is not taken out against the defendant no.2. Hence this 2 sj348-10.sxw summons for judgment is being decided against the defendant no.1 only. 2. There is no dispute about the receipt of the goods by the defendants. The defendants have disputed the claim on the ground that goods sent through some other consignments that is not covered by the 5 consignments were defective and defendant no.1 has raised debit note to the extent of Rs.51 lakhs on account of the losses suffered by the defendants. In the entire affidavit in reply no grievance is made on behalf of the defendants about the quality and quantity of the goods sent through suit invoices. Across the bar it was argued that defendants have not placed orders for the various goods received by them vide 5 invoices. Such a stand cannot be accepted. If at all the defendants had not placed orders for the goods covered by any of 5 invoices, it was absolutely necessary for the defendants to return the goods to the plaintiffs as and when they reached the factory premises of defendants. The defendants did not do so and retained the goods with them. If this is so defendants have no defence whatsoever on merits of claim put by the plaintiffs. For these reasons, defendants are required to be put to terms to contest the suit. Since the plaintiffs 3 sj348-10.sxw have claimed interest @ 24% on the invoices, right now I am not making the summons for judgment absolute and I am inclined to direct the defendant to deposit the sum of Rs.1,64,000/-, being the cost of 5 invoices. 3. In view of the above, following order is passed to dispose of the summons for judgment. ORDER i) Upon defendant No.1 depositing in this Court, the sum of Rs. 1,64,000/- on or before 30.11.2010, defendant No.1 is granted leave to defend the suit. Defendant No.1 to file the written statement on or before 7.12.2010 directly in the office. Along with written statement, defendant No.1 to enclose the documents to show that they have deposited the money. Upon deposit of monies, office to invest Rs. 1,64,000/- in a fixed deposit initially for a period of two years and continue to renew the same for like period till further orders ii) Summons for judgment is disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs. [R.Y.GANOO, J.]