1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.60 OF 2008 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.3587 OF 2007 Loreal India Pvt. Ltd. ....Plaintiff V/s. Jasran Impex Pvt. Ltd. ....Defendant Mr.Simil Purohit with Mr.Darshah Shah i/b M/s.Dhruve Liladhar & Co. for the Plaintiff. Mr.Mahesh Joshi i/b M/s.O.P. Soni for the Defendant. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 24TH JULY, 2009. P.C. :- 1. The suit is filed to recover a sum of Rs.9,06,950/- with interest at 18% p.a. on a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- from the date of filing of the suit till payment. 2. The suit is based on a dishonoured cheque drawn by the Defendant in favour of the Plaintiff in the sum of Rs.8,50,000/-.The said cheque was towards the repayment of the advance of Rs.8,50,000/- made by the Plaintiff to the Defendant in respect of the goods to be delivered by the Defendant to the Plaintiff but which were admittedly not so delivered. That the cheque was issued and the same was dishonoured is not disputed. 3. The Defendant contended that it is entitled to the adjustment of a sum of Rs.4,87,500/- allegedly deducted by the Plaintiff from four earlier invoices in the sums of Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs. 2 37,500/- pertaining to the years 2006 and 2007. The Defendant also claims a set off of Rs.54,410/- in respect of the transportation and warehousing charges in respect of the earlier bills pertaining to the year 2006. The Defendant is willing to pay the balance amount. 4. The defence is unsustainable. In the affidavit in rejoinder, the Plaintiff has referred to the credit notes issued by the Defendant in favour of the Plaintiff pertaining to the said four invoices from which the Defendant alleges that the Plaintiff deducted the said amounts. Two of these credit notes by express references therein correspond to the invoices in the sums of Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.37,500/-. In respect thereof, therefore there can be no dispute whatsoever. 5. Two of the credit notes for Rs.1,00,000/- each do not expressly refer to the corresponding invoices. It is however, clear that these credit notes pertain to the suit transactions which preceded the suit cheque. This is obvious from the fact that the suit cheque was forwarded under cover of a letter dated 4.4.2007 wherein the Defendant had expressly stated that it had an issue with the Customs and that it would be able to deliver the goods the moment the same was sorted out, failing which it would refund the advance of Rs.8,50,000/- which it had admittedly received from the Plaintiff. It is important to note that in the said letter, it is stated that the suit cheque had been issued as a guarantee/indemnity in case the Defendant failed to deliver the goods within reasonable time. The Defendant also stated that it had waived the invoices towards the transportation and warehousing to the tune of Rs.1,25,000/-. 6. Had the credit notes of Rs.1,00,000/- each not corresponded to 3 the earlier bills, the Defendant would never had issued the cheque for the return of the amount of Rs.8,50,000/- which had been advanced by the Plaintiff to the Defendant. 7. In the circumstances, there is no defence to the suit. The Summons for Judgment is made absolute and the suit is decreed as prayed for. Refund as per rules.