1 sj131-11 vai IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.131 OF 2011 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.303 OF 2011 IAL Container Line (India) Ltd. & Anr. ....Plaintiffs V/s. Attar Al-Amin ....Defendant Ms.Bharati Narichana i/b Vibha Jurisculsult Co. for the Plaintiff. Mr.Prakash G. Lad with Ms.Aparna Murlidharan for the Defendant. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 23RD JUNE, 2011. P.C. :- 1. The plaintiffs seek to recover an amount of Rs.1,33,556/- being the amount payable in respect of ocean freight charges. The plaintiffs arranged the shipment of the defendant’s goods abroad in a container. 2. The plaintiffs raised invoices in respect of the said freight. Although the bills of lading state that the freight was pre-paid, it is admitted that it was not. In fact the invoice contains an endorsement that the cheque was not deposited. I am informed that in fact the cheque was not even issued. Be that as it may, it is not even the defendants’ case that the payment had been made. 3. The defence is that the plaintiff had delayed loading the container containing the defendants’ goods by about forty days and as a result thereof, the goods were exposed to sun and were consequently 2 sj131-11 damaged. 4. It is pertinent to note that the invoices are dated 14.5.2008. The plaintiffs demanded the payment inter-alia by an e-mail message dated 20.6.2008. It is not as if the defendants were unaware of the delay which according to the plaintiffs was due to congestion at the port. 5. The defendants relied upon an e-mail message from the consignee dated 31.5.2008. The plain reading of this e-mail message makes it clear that the consignee complained about the quality of the defendants goods which had nothing to do with the delay caused by the shipment. For instance it is stated that inner card has an extra part with printing and the front portion has a flap without printing which looked indecent. The consignee also complained about the quality including the products having too many wrinkles over the laminated surface. After the demand was made, a grievance was raised that the wrinkles were caused due to the goods being exposed to the sun during the delayed period. 6. The defence raised does not appear to be bona-fide. In the circumstances, I did not allow the plaintiffs time to file affidavit in re-joinder and directed her to proceed on the basis of denials. 7. The summons for judgment is therefore disposed of by the following order :- i). Leave to defend granted to the defendants conditional upon the defendants depositing in this Court a sum of Rs.90,000./- on or before 31.8.2011. ii). In the event the defendants deposit the aforesaid amount, the suit to stand transferred to the list of Commercial Causes. The 3 sj131-11 defendants to file their written statement within thirty days. Discovery and inspection within four weeks thereafter. iii). On the said deposit being made, the Prothonotary and Senior Master to invest the same in any nationalized bank initially for a period of two years and thereafter for like periods of two years each. iv). In the event the defendants fail to deposit the aforesaid amount, liberty to the plaintiffs to apply for further orders. v). The summons for judgment stands disposed of accordingly.