1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINRY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.391 OF 2008 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 2892 OF 2008 Preeti Woolens .....Plaintiffs V. Mahendrabhai Thakkar ......Defendant Mr. D.S.Chandani i/b M/s Lexim Associates for the plaintiffs Mr. Devendra Joshi for the defendant CORAM : A.A. SAYED, J DATE : 23 RD JUNE, 2009 P.C. 1 The Summons for Judgment has been taken out by the plaintiffs to enter a judgment against the defendant for a sum of Rs.5,32,532/- together with future interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the principal amount from the date of filing of the suit till realization. The plaintiffs have filed a compilation of Original documents (total 5 documents) which are taken on record and marked Exh. “A” collectively. 2 The defendant has purchased goods for export from the plaintiffs being 2500 pieces of Woolen Blankets. The receipt of goods are acknowledged by the defendant on delivery challan dated 10.09.2005. 3 The plaintiffs have raised Invoice No. 2342 on the defendant dated 2 08-09-2008 which mentions the terms and conditions of sale. A legal notice dated 16-07-2008 was sent to the defendant. In reply the defendant has alleged inferior quality of goods. Accordingly the suit and Summons for Judgment came to be filed for recovery of the aforesaid amount with interest. 4 The defence of the defendant is that the blankets that were supplied were having 70% wool i.e. 20 % higher wool than the contracted quality and the blankets were water soiled. It is also stated that the Invoice was not signed by the defendant. It is further contended that the goods delivered on 10-09-2005 were straightaway delivered to the carriers through Gagan Freight Carriers of Bhiwandi and the goods never came in possession of the defendant. The defendant has relied upon the report of Chemical Analyzer, which shows that the quantity of wool in the blankets was 70%. 5 The learned Counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the case of Jyotsna K. Valia V. M/s T.S. Parekh an Co. reported in 2007(4) MhLJ 517 and the case of Jatin Koticha V. VFC Industries Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2008(2) Bom.C.R. 155 and submitted that the case clearly falls under Order 37. 6 I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. The suit is based on the Invoice No. 2342, for a sum of Rs.3,32,500/- dated 8th September, 2005. The Invoice mentions 18% interest on delayed payment and it further mentions that any complaints regarding the goods should be made within 7 days from the receipt of goods. The defendant admits to have received the Invoice and that the 3 goods were exported. No dispute was raised at the relevant time in respect of the terms of the the Invoice and the defendant has also signed the delivery challan. It is further to be noted that the goods were supplied on 10-09-2005, however, it is for the first time in the reply to the legal notice i.e. in August 2008 it is alleged that the goods were defective. It is further pertinent to note that the Chemical Analyzer's report is dated 19th July, 2005 i.e. prior to the delivery of goods on 10.09.2005. Hence the case of the defendant that the goods were defective cannot be believed. The contention of the defendant that the plaintiffs had promised 50% discount also cannot be accepted in absence of any material on record in that regard. Moreover, there is also nothing on record produced by the defendant to show that the goods which were supplied were ultimately rejected by the foreign buyer. 7 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the defence of the defendant is moonshine and no triable issues have been raised. The Summons for Judgment deserves to be allowed. 8 The suit is decreed as prayed; however the interest shall be @ 12% pa on the amount of Rs.3,32,500/- from the date of the decree till payment / realization. 9 Refund of Court fees as per rules. 10 Summons for Judgment as well as suit to stand disposed of A.A.SAYED, J.