:1: :1: :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMARY SUIT NO.1476 OF 2005 Tata Steel Ltd. .. Plaintiff. Vs. Aey Gee Brothers & Ors. .. Defendants. Mr.G.R.Joshi with Avinash Joshi i/b Mulla & Mulla for the plaintiffs. Mr.Rahul Karnik for defendant no.2. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 19TH JUNE, 2008. DATED : 19TH JUNE, 2008. DATED : 19TH JUNE, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The plaintiffs have instituted the present suit for recovery of the amount of Rs.1,46,77,296.43 from all the defendants with 21% interest per annum from the date of the suit till its payment or realization and costs of the suit. The transaction between the plaintiffs and defendant no.1 was of sale of tin plates partly on credit basis and partly against Letters of Credit. The goods were sold, supplied and delivered by the plaintiffs to defendant no.1 and invoices were raised by the plaintiff-company. The outstanding principal amount of Rs.1,01,83,860.75 Ps. had been acknowledged by the defendants vide their letter dated 8th April, 2002. Thereafter, defendant no.1 made part payment of Rs.2,30,581/-. In the circumstances the plaintiffs have prayed for recovery of the principal amount of Rs.1,01,83,460.75 Ps. with accrued interest till the date of filing of the suit. The invoices provide for payment of interest at the rate :2: :2: :2: of 21% per annum on direct payment. It appears that the defendant had in past paid interest at the rate of 21% for delayed payments. 3. The defendant nos.3, 4, 5 and 7 were granted unconditional leave and were directed to file written statement within four weeks from the date of order dated 17.4.2006. Thereafter they have chosen not to appear in the case nor have they filed written statement till this date. Even today, none appears for the defendants. Insofar as defendant nos.1, 2 and 6 are concerned the suit has already been decreed on 17.7.2006. The decree against defendant no.2 was, however, set aside subject to conditions mentioned in the order dated 17.4.2008. For the present we are not concerned with defendant no.2 and the decree is sought against defendant nos.3, 4, 5 and 7 only. The plaintiffs have examined B.Ramanathan as P.W.1 as their witness and have filed 62 documents being Exhibit P-1 to P-62 in support of their claim. I perused the affidavit in lieu of examination in chief and the other material including the documents Exhibit P-1 to P-62 placed on record. The case set up by the plaintiffs and their all assertions have remained uncontroverted and as a result thereof they stand admitted. In the result the suit is decreed as prayed against defendant nos. 3, 4, 5 and 7. Decree be drawn up accordingly. Refund of court fees, if any, as per rules. :3: :3: :3: (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)