IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO. 100 OF 1999 Forward Financial Service Ltd. ...... ......Plaintiff. V/s Primus Chemical Ltd. ...... ......Defendant. Mr.S.K.Jain, Adv. for the plaintiff. None for the defendant. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 3.7.08 PC: This is a summary suit instituted by the plaintiff under Order XXXVII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recovery of an amount of Rs.4,44,000/- from the defendant. This Court by an order dated 28.8.2000 disposed of Summons for Judgment No.194/99 by granting the defendant unconditional leave to defend the suit and directed that the defendant shall file written statement within 12 weeks from the date of the order. The defendant did not comply with the said order. Defendant appears to have placed on record written statement on 27.6.05 which is still under objection without seeking permission of the Court. The defendant did not move any application till date seeking permission of the Court to file written statement on record or seeking condonation of delay in filing written statement. These facts are noted in the order dated 26.6.08 passed by the Court 1 in the presence of respective counsel appearing for the parties. In the above referred factual situation the matter came to be listed today for judgment. Counsel for the defendant is absent. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that on account of noncompliance of the order passed by this Court directing the defendant to file written statement within 12 weeks, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment forthwith. Reliance is placed on rule 3 sub-rule 6(b) of Order XXXVII. 2. Perusal of the plaint reveals the following facts: That the plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and carries on business of rendering financial services. The defendant-company carries on business in the chemicals and allied items. In or about April, 1998 defendant approached the plaintiff at Mumbai with a request to arrange certain credit facility for its new chemical project of Beta Naphthol, Bon Acid, J Acid, and Gamma Acide, etc. at Ujjain in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The parties entered into agreement titled as memorandum of understanding where under the plaintiff undertook to provide services for raising credit facilities for the defendant from the financial institutions/bank. The defendant was in need of credit facility to the extent of Rs.4.5 crores. The plaintiff agreed to provide services so as to raise credit facilities required by the defendant. The memorandum of understanding has been placed on record which indicates that the plaintiff is entitled to claim commission/consultancy charges at the rate of 2.5% of the amount of credit limit sanctioned to the defendant 2 on account of services rendered by the plaintiff. The defendant had agreed to pay the estimated fees at the rate of 2.5% on the desired credit limit of Rs.4.5 crores to be Rs11.25 lacs. Out of the said sum of Rs.11.25 lacs sum of Rs.2 lacs was to be paid by the defendant at the time of signing of memorandum of understanding which amount is undisputedly paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. Balance amount of Rs.2 lacs was to be paid on getting favourable response from the bank. Sum of Rs.5 lacs was to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff on obtaining in principal sanction and the balance on obtaining final sanction. Document filed at Sr.No.2 is a communication from the Manager, Syndicate Bank addressed to the defendant dated 8.8.1998. Perusal of the said communication reveals that Syndicate bank had agreed in principal to make available best working capital facility to the defendant' s unit. The final sanction however was to be granted after proper assessment and on receipt of the additional information required by the bank. According to the the plaintiff the defendant did not comply with the requirements the bank had expected the defendant to comply with and hence the credit facility was not disbursed to the defendant. On the above set of facts the plaintiff claims the consultancy charges in the sum of Rs.6,44,000/- lacs at the rate of 2% of the sanctioned limit i.e. Rs.3.22 crores. After giving credit for the initial payment of Rs.2 lacs to the defendant the plaintiff raised debit voucher of Rs.6,44,000/- as per the terms of the memorandum of understanding. After giving 3 credit for the initial payment of Rs.2 lacs the suit has been filed for recovery of the amount of Rs.4,44,000/-. The plaintiff thus seeks a decree in the sum of Rs.4.44,000/- together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. On the said sum of Rs.4,44,000/- from the date of filing of the suit till realisation of the amount. 3. Perusal of the memorandum of understanding dated 5.5.98 filed at Sr.No.1 in the list of documents reveals that the parties had not agreed on interest on the delayed payment of the amount of service charges. Thus the matter would be regulated by section 34 of Code of Civil Procedure. The claim made by the plaintiff is supported by documents such as memorandum of understanding, communication from the bank intimating in principal sanction of credit facility and copy of debit voucher. The plaintiff in my view is thus entitled to a decree. Hence I pass the following order: The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.4,44,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. From the date of filing of the suit till realization of the amount. Suit is decree with costs. Decree be drawn accordingly. 4