1 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 243 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO. 36 OF 2007 EMPEE Offset (P) Ltd. .. Plaintiff V/s M/ Padhmam Herbal Care (P) Ltd. .. Defendant Ms.Sunita Sonawane for the plaintiff. Mr.I.M. Vohra i/b Mr.Bipin Joshi for the defendant. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 11TH JUNE 2009 P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the plaintiff gives up the claim for interest prior to the date of the suit. 3. The plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of the principal sum of Rs.10,25,836/- being the value of the goods sold, supplied and delivered to 2 the defendant. The defendant placed the purchase order dated 14th November 2003, a copy of which is annexed at Exhibit-A to the Plaint. As per the said purchase order, the plaintiff supplied the goods to the defendant and sent two invoices. Copies of the invoices are at Exhibits B and C to the Plaint. The goods were received by the defendant but the payment was not made to the plaintiff. By a letter dated 12th May 2004, the plaintiff demanded the payment after expiry of the period of credit. However, the defendant failed and neglected to make the payment. By a letter dated 20th May 2004, the defendant contended that the goods were rejected on quality grounds and denied liability to pay. The same ground is taken as a defence to the summons for judgment. 5. It may also be noted that the goods were suppled in December 2003 and January 2004. The letter about the alleged defects in the goods was written for the first time on 20th May 2004, that is long after the receipt of the goods and that too after the plaintiff demanded the payment. Further more, the letter did not mention any specific defect in the quality of goods. The affidavit in reply also does not mention any specific defect. In my view, the defence that the goods were defective is nothing but a moonshine defence for two reasons, viz. (i) rejection of goods on the ground of defects was not communicated within a reasonable time but was communicated only after demand of price, and (ii) the alleged defects are not specified either in the rejection letter or anywhere else. 3 6. Learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the suit is not properly instituted as it has not been signed and verified by an authorised person. He submitted that there is no Board resolution authorising the signatory to sign and verify the plaint. Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure prescribes that the pleadings on behalf of a corporation (company) may be signed by a director or a company secretary. The plaint has been signed by a director of the plaintiff company. In the circumstances, the contention that the plaint has not been properly signed and verified has no merit. 7. As regards the interest, the plaintiff has already given up the claim for interest prior to the filing of the suit and in view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court, the plaintiff is permitted to do so. 8. In the circumstances, since there is no triable issues are raised by the defendant, only by way of concession I am inclined to grant conditional leave to the defendant subject to deposit of the entire sum in the court within 4 weeks. Hence, I pass the following order: ORDER The defendant is granted conditional leave to defend the suit subject to payment of Rs.10,25,836/- within 4 weeks. On such deposit being made, 4 the plaintiff shall have liberty to withdraw the same by furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Prothonotary & Senior Master. On deposit, the suit shall stand transferred to the list of commercial causes. The defendant shall file its written statement within 10 weeks. In the event the defendant fails to deposit the amount, the plaintiff shall have liberty to apply. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)