1 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 232 OF 2007 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 342 OF 2007 Advanced Systems Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. .. Plaintiff V/s Sunil P. Bagaria .. Defendant Mr. Tushar Bhavsar i/b Kishore Dalal & Co. for the plaintiff. Mr. Anil Agarwal for defendant. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 10TH JULY 2009 P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of the amount of deposit, which the defendant has failed to return on termination of the licence, and interest thereon. 3. According to the plaintiff, it took on leave and licence the defendant’s premises. Deposit of Rs.10 lakhs was given to the defendant which was to be 2 returned on the defendant vacating of the premises on termination of licence. The licence was terminated on 24th July 2004. On termination, the defendant did not refund the amount of deposit. The plaintiff therefore continued to remain in possession of the premises till 31st June 2006 without payment of any licence fee. The premises were finally vacated on 31st June 2006 and yet the defendant failed to refund the amount of deposit. The plaintiff has therefore filed the suit for recovery of the security deposit with interest. 4. The defendant has contested the claim on several grounds. The defences of the defendant, inter alia, are: (i) Valuable property of the defendant lying in the icensed premises was destroyed on account of negligence by the plaintiff. The defendant has therefore claimed the sum of Rs.15,70,000/- for the said loss. (ii) The defendant is not liable to pay interest as there was no agreement to pay interest. 5. In my view, the defences raised by the defendant give rise to triable issues. The question of damage to the defendant's property is a disputed question of fact which can not be decided in a summary manner in summons for judgment. It would require a trial. 3 6. Further more, admittedly there was no agreement to pay interest. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff was entitled to interest under the Interest Act. The interest was demanded by a notice dated 1st February 2005. Assuming that interest is payable under the Interest Act, the interest can be claimed only from the date of demand, i.e. 1st February 2005. In the suit, the interest has been claimed from 24th July 2004. There is no agreement to pay interest. There is no legal liability under the Interest Act to pay interest from a date earlier than the date of demand. Thus the claim for interest is not covered by a summary suit. 7. In the circumstances, the defendant is granted unconditional leave to defend the suit. The suit shall stand transferred to the list of commercial causes. The defendant shall file the written statement within 12 weeks. 8. The summons for judgment is disposed of. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)