1 mp t IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMONS FOR JUDEMENT NO. 425 OF 2007 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 2193 OF 2007 Harvinder J. Gupta .. Plaintiff versus Beekay Enterprises .. Defendant ... Mr.S.H. Bohra for the plaintiff. Mr.M.J. Devani for the defendant. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 27th April 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This Summons for Judgement is taken out by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of the price of the goods sold and delivered to the defendant. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that the 2 defendant placed written purchase order on the plaintiff for supply of 90 + 90 nos. of barrels at the rate of Rs.550/- per barrel plus 12.5% V.A.T. Plaintiff supplied the goods to the defendant and issued invoices. The defendant did not pay. Hence, plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of the sale price with interest. Realising the difficulty that the purchase order does not contain a clause for interest, the plaintiff through its counsel gave up the claim of interest prior to the date of the filing of the suit. This is permissible in view of the decision of the Full Bench. 3. In the affidavit in reply, defendant has admitted having placed the purchase order. Defendant has also admitted receipt of the goods. There is no dispute even about the price of the goods. The dispute only appears in respect of the V.A.T. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the V.A.T. was payable only at 4% advalorem and plaintiff has wrongly charged V.A.T. at 12.%. The purchase order placed by the defendant discloses that the price agreed was Rs.550/- plus 12.5% V.A.T. In the circumstances, in my view, defendant cannot have any defence that the V.A.T. has been wrongly charged. 3 4. Counsel for the defendant submitted that this Court does not have jurisdiction because the goods were delivered at Bhiwandi. Under section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court where part of the cause of action arises has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. Since the written order was placed at Mumbai and accepted at Mumbai part of cause of action arose at Mumbai. Hence defence of jurisdiction has no merit. 5. In my view, defendant has no triable defence to the claim. The defence of jurisdiction is ex-facie not maintainable and defence regarding V.A.T. is illusory as the defendant himself has agreed to pay V.A.T. @ 12.5%. In the circumstances, plaintiff is entitled to a decree of the principal sum. Hence, I pass the following order:- 6. Summons for Judgement is allowed. Suit of the plaintiff is decreed as follows:- 7. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,97,888/- together with interest thereon at 6% from the date of the suit till the date of the decree and at 9% from the date of the decree till payment. 4 (D.G. KARNIK, J)