1 sj73-10 ttm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.73 OF 2010 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.3039 OF 2009 Elite International P.Ltd. .. Plaintiffs Vs. Anand Dhuri .. Defendant Mr.Simil Purohit a/w Mr.Rupen Kanawala i/b M/s.Mustafa Motiwala for the plaintiffs Mr.Havtalkar a/w Mr.Tripathi i/b Law Cell for the defendant CORAM : S.C.Dharmadhikari, J. DATE : December 21, 2010 P.C. : 1. This summary suit is filed on the basis of dishonoured cheques. It is stated that in December 2006, plaintiffs engaged services of the defendant for obtaining equity investment for the plaintiff and its sister concern. For that purpose they claimed from the defendant, a sum of Rs.68,60,400/- by cheques details of which are disclosed in para 3 of the plaint. By letter dt. 27.12.06, defendant confirmed receipt of the amount. In this letter, he stated that the sum of Rs.12 lacs was adjusted as his fees and balance sum of Rs. 56,60,400/- was held as deposit and it would be returned. However, that amount was not returned and pursuant to request and reminders, the defendant forwarded the cheques details of which are disclosed in para 8 of 2 sj73-10 the plaint which cheques on presentation were dishonoured. Plaintiffs also disclosed that prior thereto part payments were made of 25 lacs for which due adjustment has been given. For the balance sum, the plaintiffs have been repeatedly following up the matter after the cheques were dishonoured but neither the amount was cleared nor any payment was forthcoming. Therefore legal notice was issued demanding the sum and in reply thereto, the defendant stated that on account of his long standing and cordial relationship, he is willing to pay Rs.9 lacs on demand and balance of Rs.25 lacs as post dated cheques. A copy of this letter dt.9.7.09 annexed as Exhibit 'I' to the plaint. 2. Therefore, principal amount of Rs.30 lacs with interest has been claimed by instituting summary suit. In the affidavit in reply, the only stand taken is that although defendant was ready to liquidate the sum in the manner set out in the letter dt.9.7.09, no confirmation was received from the plaintiffs. Therefore, the offer does not survive. 3. After having heard the learned advocates appearing for parties and perusing with their assistance the plaint and the annexures, so also the affidavits, I am of the view that the plaintiffs have rightly invoked order XXXVII of the Civil Procedure Code. 4. Suit is on dishonoured cheques. Presumption raised under section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has not been rebutted. Further there is a acknowledgment of liability in the sum set out in the reply to the advocates 3 sj73-10 notice dt.9.7.09 so also, in the affidavit and particularly in para 6 and 9 thereof. In such circumstances, and when the suit claim is within limitation, so also defendant resides within the territorial jurisdiction of this court, ordinarily the decree must follow, however request made by the defendants is that they wish to consider the option of paying the amount as stated in their letter but some time be given. Since I am satisfied from the reading of the material that pleas raised cannot constitute a valid and bona fide defence and the Vakalatnama is filed, so also, the application seeking leave to defend only with a view to protract and delay the payment, there shall be a decree as prayed. However, with a view to enable defendant to pay the sum of Rs.30 lacs as agreed, decree shall not be executed for a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Refund of court fee as per rules and advocates cost will also be computed as per rules. Original documents be filed within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. They shall be marked X (Colly). ‘ ’ ( S.C.Dharmadhikari, J. )