IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.367 of 2008 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.4307 OF 2001 Basa Silk Mills Pvt Ltd. ..Plaintiffs Vs. Lokmat Fabrics Pvt Ltd. ..Defendants Ms. Mamata Sudh with Mr. Jitendra Ranawat i/b Bantawala & Co. for the Plaintiffs. Mr. Bharat Vaishnawa with Mr. A.C.Dubey i/b M/s. Bharat Vaishnawa & Co. for the Defendants. Coram: Smt. Roshan Dalvi, J Date : 09th June, 2009 P.C. 1. This suit is filed for recovery of the price of goods under the six invoices of the Plaintiffs Exhibits A-1 to A-6. For each of the deliveries the Plaintiffs have relied upon the delivery challans showing the goods delivered to the Defendants. 2. The receipt of the goods is not denied. The Defendants claim to have made part payments. The Defendants claim that the quality of some portion of the goods was not as per the contract. Those goods have been returned as defective goods. The Plaintiffs have accepted the returned goods, though credit of the entire amount of the returned of the goods is not shown in the particulars of claim. The Plaintiffs’ counsel has fairly conseded that the credit must be given to the Defendants for the value of the goods shown to be returned to the Plaintiffs as stated in paragraph 6(b) of the Affidavit in reply. 3. The Defendants have made payments by 8 cheques between May 2001 to August 2001. The total amount paid by cheques is Rs.2,07,200/-. Credit is required to be given for that amount also. 4. For the remainder of the value of the goods sold to the Defendants and not returned by the Defendants there is no defence shown. The remainder of the amount is, therefore, required to be paid by the Defendants to the Plaintiffs. 5. It is argued on behalf of the Defendants that the Plaintiffs have lodged a criminal complaint in the Bhivandi Court showing jurisdiction of that court. Hence the Plaintiffs have not come with clean hands and hence unconditional leave must be given to the Defendants. The aspect relating to the territorial jurisdiction of this court has been considered in the order dated 21.07.2008 and cannot be reagitated. The fact of filing another Application in another court is not defence of the Defendants to the cause of action of the Plaintiffs on merits in the summary suit. 6. It is argued that the Summons for Judgment is taken out highly belatedly. The suit is filed in 2001. Summons for Judgment is taken out in 2008. The Plaintiff’s counsel has shown how that is so. The Plaintiffs initially took out the Application for attachment before Judgment. That came to be withdrawn in 2004. The Defendants took out Application for cancellation of the leave granted under clause XII of Letters Patent by way of Notice of Motion. That was withdrawn on 28.02.2006. The Defendants took out a Chamber Summons immediately thereafter. The chamber Summons was disposed off on 21.07.2008. The Plaintiffs have taken out Summons for Judgment in November 2008. Summons for Judgment is not unduly delayed. 7. The Plaintiffs claim in the suit is Rs.8,68,362/-. The Defendants have paid Rs.2,07,200/- by way of 8 cheques to the Plaintiffs. The Defendants have returned goods worth Rs.1,47,941/-. The remaining amount due and payable under the suit transaction is Rs.5,13,221.89. Upon seeing paragraph 6 of the reply of the Defendants it is clear that taking into consideration the Defendants defence of part payment as well as return of part goods nothing else is stated. Hence there is absolutely no defence to the remainder of the Plaintiffs claim. For that remainder no written statement will be required. Summons for Judgment is, therefore, allowed to the extent of Rs.5,13,221.89. The suit is decreed to that extent. 8. 2/3rd refund of court fees. (Smt. Roshan Dalvi,J)