1 SJ54.09.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 54 OF 2009 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 818 OF 2008 Bharti K. Punamiya. ... Plaintiff. V/s. Shiv Shakti Consumer Co-operative Society Ltd. & Ors. ... Defendants. Mr. S.M. Sabrad for the Plaintiff. Mr. K.K. Jadhav for the Defendants. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 04th OCTOBER 2010. P.C. :- The Plaintiff has instituted this Suit for recovery of monies as set out in the particulars of claim on the ground that the Plaintiff had advanced loan to the Defendant No.1 to the tune of Rs.5,70,000/- and the cheque drawn in favour of the Plaintiff by Defendant No.1 for repayment of loan got dishonored. 2. The Plaintiff has joined Defendant No.2 as a party Defendant in his capacity as Chairman of Defendant No.1. Defendant No.3 is shown as a Secretary of Defendant No.1 and is joined as a party Defendant. At the outset, it will have to be mentioned that since Defendant No.1 is a Co-operative Society under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, there was no need for the Plaintiff to join the Chairman and 2 SJ54.09.sxw Secretary as party Defendant. To that extent the Summons for Judgment taken out against Defendant Nos.2 and 3 is not maintainable and Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 can be granted unconditional leave to defend. 3. So far as Defendant No.1 is concerned, affidavit in reply is filed by Mr. P.B. Rambhia in his capacity as Chairman of Defendant No.1 and has contended that a blank cheque was handed over to the Plaintiff to use the same at the time of paying the bid amount in the auction sale which is conducted in the Customs Department. The cheque does not mention the name of the concerned Officer of the Customs Department and the cheque is drawn in favour of the Yatra Travels being the firm run by the Plaintiff. The stand of Defendant No.1 that the cheque was given to be utilized in the auction sale conducted by the Customs Department cannot be accepted because if at all the Plaintiff was to act as the representative of Defendant No.1 in the said sale, the name of the payee ought to have been filled viz. some Officer of the Customs Department as the monies were to be paid to the Customs Department. The defence put up by the Defendant cannot be accepted for the purpose of granting unconditional leave to defend. The Suit is instituted for the recovery of the monies as the cheque is dishonoured. The explanation given by Defendant No.1 cannot be accepted and Defendant No.1 will have to be put to terms to defend the Suit. 4. Hence, following order is passed to dispose of the 3 SJ54.09.sxw Summons for Judgment :- (i) Upon Defendant No.1 depositing a sum of Rs. 5,70,000/- in this Court on or before 15th December 2010, Defendant No.1 is granted leave to defend the Suit. (ii) Unconditional leave is granted to Defendant Nos.2 and 3. (iii) Defendant Nos.1,2 and 3 to file their written statement in the office directly on or before 13th January 2011. (iv) Defendant No.1 to annex proof of deposit of monies alongwith the written statement. (v) Defendants shall serve copy of the written statement respectively upon Advocate for the Plaintiff within 10 days from filing written statement in the Office. (vi) If the amount of Rs.5,70,000/- is deposited in the Office, the Prothonotary and Senior Master to invest the same in a Nationalised Bank initially for a period of 2 years and continue to renew the same for like period till further orders. (R.Y. GANOO, J.)