:1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT SUIT SUIT NO. 1529 OF 1988 NO. 1529 OF 1988 NO. 1529 OF 1988 M/s. E.A. Noorbhoy and Sons. ...Plaintiffs. V/s. M/s. Darabashaw B. Cursetjee’s Sons (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. ... Defendants. Mr. Lokhandwala for the Plaintiffs. None for the Defendants. ..... CORAM CORAM CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. 24TH 24TH 24TH NOVEMBER 2008. NOVEMBER 2008. NOVEMBER 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . The Plaintiffs have filed a Suit to recover sum of Rs.12,35,748/- as per the particulars of the plaint which is annexure ‘A’ to the plaint. The Plaintiffs have also claimed interest on Rs.4,16,000/- from the date of the filing of the Suit and further Rs.32,000/- per month towards the loss of hired charges of four barges. 2. The Suit was filed on 3rd May 1988. 3. It is set out in the plaint that the Plaintiffs owned four steel barges. The Defendants are Stevedores and Lighterage Contractors. They require these barges for the purpose of their business and they approached the Plaintiffs and requested them to give the said barges on hire. :2: 4. The Plaintiffs agreed and that is how an agreement was arrived at for hiring the four barges. This agreement was executed in July 1984 and copy thereof is at Annexure ‘A’. The hire charges were determined at Rs.8,000/- per month per barge. It is stated that the Defendants have been paying the hire charges of Rs.10,000/- per month and they paid the sum regularly till 2nd February 1987. Thereafter, they failed and neglected to pay the sum. The Defendants have also failed to pay steps to renew the sea-worthy certificate or repair the barges. 5. The Plaintiffs addressed the letter on demand and stated that Defendants were liable to pay hire charges. However, Defendants admitted their liability only till June 1987 and for an amount of Rs.1,28,000/- They denied liability to pay the other charges. That is how the Plaintiffs have filed the suit for recovery of the sums as agreed upon in terms of the agreement. The dispute between parties are referred to in the plaint and ultimately, the Plaintiffs have claimed the sums which include the charges for making the barges seaworthy. 6. Mr. Lokhandwala appearing for the Plaintiffs states that in this suit issues have been framed as the written statement was filed by the Defendants. He admits that certain directions were given by this Court on 29th September 2008 directing the Plaintiffs to file the :3: affidavit of documents and their affidavit in lieu of examination in chief. He states that six weeks period was given for the same but despite this period having expired, he was unable to obtain any instructions. he prayed for further time which was not granted by me on the last occasion. 7. Mr. Lokhandwala in all fairness states that despite the Defendants having filed a written statement and issues being framed and though the Plaintiffs cannot file original documents, yet, he submits that there is a admission of the liability by the Defendants to the extent indicated in the the written statement. In this behalf, he invites my attention to paragraphs 3,4 and 6 of the written statement. 8. There is some substance in the submission of Mr. Lokhandwala. Para 7 of the Written Statement reads as under :- " With reference to para 7 of the plaint, these Defendants admit the correspondence. it is also true that these Defendants offered Rs.1,28,000/- to the Plaintiffs in full and final settlement of all the dues of the Plaintiffs by their letter dated 30th January, 1988. These Defendants were shocked to learn from the Plaintiffs that the entire matter was settled when Mr. S. Krishamoorthy and Mr. :4: Viraf Irani met the Plaintiffs in August, 1987. By the said letter dated 30th January 1988 these Defendants reiterated that all the four steel barges were released by these Defendants on the 6th June 1987, and therefore, these Defendants made calculations and accordingly were prepared to pay Rs.1,28,000/- upto 6th June, 1987 to the Plaintiffs in full and final settlement of the Dispute. These Defendants crave leave to refer to an rely upon the correspondence when produced." 9. The Plaintiffs have also invited my attention to para 8 of the Written Statement where the Defendants once again admit their liability and state that they are liable to pay Rs.1,28,000/-. 10. Mr. Lokhandwala states that even this admitted sum has not been paid. 11. In my view once there is a clear-cut admission of the liability, then, to a limited extent the Plaintiffs are liable to succeed. Atleast in so far as the admitted liability. In other words, although, the Plaintiffs are unable to prove their claim of Rs.2,50,000/- per month so also damages at the Rate of Rs.32,000/- per day, and the Suit is liable to be dismissed to that extent, yet, in the light of the admission of the liability as above, the Plaintiffs are entitled to a decree on admission. :5: 12. Hence, the following order :- (i) The Suit is decreed to the extent of Rs.1,28,000/-. In other words, the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover this sum alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from today till payment or realisation. This amount shall be payable by the Defendants and there will be a decree to that extent in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants. (ii) The Advocates costs, if any, to be computed as per Rules. All concerned to act on authenticated copy of this order. Needless to state that the suit claim in so far as the rest of the amount is concerned, is rejected. (S.C. (S.C. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.)