1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMONS FOR JUDGEMENT NO.321 OF 2007 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.181 OF 2007 M/s.Jyoti Metal (India) .. Plaintiff versus Chadha Papers Limited .. Defendant ... Mr.K.S.Tripathi for the plaintiff. Mr.Vinay A. Rathi for the defendant. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED :15th July 2009 P.C:- 1. Plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of the price of the goods sold, supplied and delivered to the plaintiff. There is no dispute regarding the supply of the goods by the plaintiff and the receipt by the defendant. The defendant however has raised two defences. It is firstly contended that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. It is secondly contended that part of the goods were rejected as defective and therefore the amount is not due. 2. As regards the first defence, it may be noted that the 2 goods were supplied from Mumbai. Therefore part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this court. Plaintiff has obtained leave under clause 12 of the Letters Patent. Therefore, prima facie this court has a jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. Counsel for the defendant submitted that in the plaint, there is no statement that leave under clause 12 of the Letters Patent has been applied and therefore this court has no jurisdiction. The docket of the plaint itself shows that the leave has been granted by the court. Mere absence of a specific pleading in the plaint that the leave has been obtained would not oust the jurisdiction of this court to try and entertain the suit. The first defence has no merit. 2. As regards the rejection of the goods, learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the rejection was not in time and rejection was not informed. He further submitted that assuming that part of the goods were rejected and in respect of the goods which have not been rejected, the defendant must be directed to make the payment. He invited my attention to the copy of the debit note which is annexed as Exhibit-A2 to the affidavit in reply filed by the defendant. The debit note is prepared by the defendant in respect of the alleged rejection of the goods. The debit note itself shows that goods of Rs.5,79,618/- were received by the defendant and goods worth Rs.3,12,787/- are alleged 3 to have been rejected. Thus, even on the defendant s own case the goods worth Rs.2,66,831/- were accepted by the defendant. Therefore in my view, defendant has no defence in respect of liability to pay for accepted goods worth Rs. 2,66,831/- In view of this, I pass the following order:- O R D E R 4. The defendant is granted unconditional leave to defend the suit so far as the claim for principal sum of Rs. 3,12,787/- is concerned. The defendant is however granted conditional leave to defend the claim in respect of the principal sum of Rs.2,66,831/- subject to his depositing in the court the entire amount of Rs.2,66,831/- within six weeks. On such deposit, plaintiff is permitted to withdraw the said amount by furnishing an undertaking to the court to refund the amount in the event the suit is dismissed. So far as interest is concerned, defendant is granted unconditional leave to defend the suit qua the claim of interest. 5. Defendant shall file written statement within eight weeks. Suit shall stand transferred to the list of commercial causes. (D.G. KARNIK, J)