SJ.341/2009 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 341 OF 2009 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 1406 OF 2009 Ashraf Husein Merchant …. Plaintiff. Vs. Supreme Sukhadam & Associatds & Ors. ….Defendants. --- Mr. Sandip Parekh i/b M/s Bilawala & Co., for the Plaintiff. Mr. Rishabh Shah i/b Chitnis Vaithy & Co., for Defendants. ---- CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 7 TH SEPTEMBER, 2010. P.C.: 1] Heard Shri Parikh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff and Shri Shah, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants. 2] The plaintiff in this suit claims a decree in the sum of Rs. 20,45,123/- on the basis of particulars of claim annexure ‘J’ to the plaint. 1 SJ.341/2009 The principal sum is stated to be Rs.13,33,125/- and the balance is the interest @18% p.a. Further prayer in the suit is for a decree in the sum of Rs.21,29,904/- as per the particulars of claim annexure ‘K’. That is comprising of principal sum of Rs.13,88,390/- and the balance is the interest. 3] It is stated that the plaintiff is a citizen of India and equally the first defendant. They were was introduced a the Chartered Accountant known to both. The first defendant is a partnership firm of which defendant nos.2 and 3 are the partners. They are sued in their capacity as drawers and acceptors of the Suit bills of exchange. The bill discounting facility was given at the instance of and intervention of the said Chartered Accountant and it is stated in the para 2 of the plaint that defendant no.1 was to pay to plaintiff the bill discounting charges during the course of his business. 4] In the ordinary course of business the bill discounting charges remained in arrears and in consideration thereof the bills of exchange annexure ‘A’ are executed. That was executed by defendant no. 4. All this because defendant nos.1 to 3 admitted that they were not in a position to pay the arrears of bill discounting charges to the plaintiff. However, the bill of exchange at annexure ‘B’ is executed for the bill 2 SJ.341/2009 discounting charges. It is stated on the reverse of these bills that the first defendant confirms that the amounts coverd thereby represents bill discounting charges. It is urged that the bill discounting charges up to 31.3.2006 stand confirmed and thereafter these bills were executed and a letter dated 25.12.2005 is stated to have been addressed recording the dealings. 5] Since there was default committed in making payments under these bills, the plaintiff by two letters dated 5.2.2008 and 27.2.2008 called upon the defendants to make payment. The response to these letters has been a matter of argument and debate and it would be fair to reproduce the contents of a letter dated 13.3.2008, copy of which is at Exhibit ‘F’ :- “With reference to your letter of 7th March, 2008, please note we came to a figure of Rs.17,50,000/- after discussion with your sons namely Akheel & Aslam. We had explained to your sons, that the high rate of interest that you are demanding is a very unreasonable rate, when the current rate is much lower. We have alredy agreed with your sons a lower rate along with payment terms. We had already proposed to pay Rs.50,000/- per month 2 years ago to your sons, by now you would have 3 SJ.341/2009 received substantial amounts. However at their request we are now trying to give you the amount in ¾ installments as discussed with Akheel & Aslam. We are aware it is causing you hardship and that you are urgently in need of the sums, accordingly we request you to give us your clearance in writing so that we can at early late start the release. We are proposng to settle your account in this year. Please note we are aware of your age and we trying our best to clear your outstanding. 6] The plaintiff naturally did not confirm these contents and reiterated that there was no such meeting or agreement to scale down the liability and in fact despite admission, the defendants have failed to make payment. Then reliance is placed on annexure ‘H’ also to urge that confirmation is of the sum of Rs.32,61,515/-, and therefore, there is no question of scaling down and in any event the reduced amounts have never been offered leave alone paid. 7] It is in such circumstances, the Summons for Judgment has been filed. 8] In the affidavit in reply, the defendants have contended that in the year 1995 the plaintiff approached the defendants and showed 4 SJ.341/2009 interest in investing some amounts in the business of defendants. He advanced a sum of Rs.15 lacs to the defendants on 22.11.1995 for which bills of exchange was executed. One bill of Rs.5 lacs was fully paid and redeemed. Apart from the amount of Rs.9,60,000/- towards return of principal amount, the defendants have paid Rs.6,52,500/-, and therefore, it was not as if the defendants were not agreeable to repay the moneys. The further case is that there is a confirmation by the plaintiff in respect of receipt of certain amount. Therefore, substantial sums out of the principal amount have been paid. The present suit has been filed by segregating the bill of exchange and it is stated that there were several meetings with the defendants till about April 2008 wherein it was agreed that the claim of the plaintiff would be amicably settled by accepting the sum of Rs.17,50,000/- in full and final settlement. That is how the arrangement has been recorded and once the plaintiff has agreed to accept the amount as agreed, then, the present suit claiming higher amount is not maintainable. 9] Shri Parikh appearing for the plaintiff who submits that the suit claim is based upon the bill of exchange and therefore the suit falls within Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Further, it 5 SJ.341/2009 is the case of the plaintiff that they are entitled to sums as noted on the bills of exchange and there was no agreement scaling down and reducing the amounts. It was unilateral act of the defendants and that aspect has been duly clarified. Even the defendants have understood that their liability is in the full sum as stated on the bills of exchange. Similarly, the endorsement merely confirms that the liability to pay the amount under the bills of exchange. That is because the bills were executed to pay the bill discounting charges then in arrears and outstanding. 10] For all these reasons, according to Shri Parikh this is not a fit case to grant leave to defend as the appearance and affidavit is filed to delay the claim of the Plaintiff. In any event, defence is frivolous and vexatious. 11] On the other hand, Shri Shah urged that the suit claim is barred by law of limitation. He submits that barring making the statement that no part of claim is barred by Law of Limitation. It is not stated as to how the bar of limitation is saved. He submits that there is no question of the suit bill of exchange bearing two dates. 12] The bills of exchange are dated 1.4.2005. The bills are not stated to have been presented and dishonoured. The details thereof are not 6 SJ.341/2009 set out. In this circumstances, the suit filed in the year 2009 is ex-facie time barred. On this ground alone the defendants are entitled to unconditional leave to defend. However, he submits that the defendants have agreed and offered in writing to pay the sum and the plaintiff has confirmed the same throughout. He submits that there could not have been any claim other than what was discussed and agreed in as much as the endorsement on the reverse of the bills of exchange is not admitted. For all these reasons, he submits that this is a fit case for grant of unconditional leave to defend. 13] Having perused the plaint and annexures thereto, to my mind, prima facie, the contention that the claim is time barred is not acceptable. The bills of exchange may have been dated 1.4.2005 but what is stated on the reverse of the same is confirmation of the amount towards the bill discounting charges payable between 1.4.2005 and 31.3.2006. The presumption under section 114 of the Evidence Act, so also section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is not prima facie rebutteed by merely such a plea. Further, if the bills are stated to have been executed in the year 2005 then, there was no occasion for the defendants to reply to a demand notice on 13.3.2008 and refer to a meeting wherein confirmation of the liability 7 SJ.341/2009 of Rs.17,50,000/- has been made. This letter is admittedly within the period of limitation. Therefore, it is not as if the benefit of this communication/admission of liability will not be available to the plaintiff straightaway. Therefore, the first contention of Shri Shah must fail. 14] Secondly, if the contents of the letter dated 13.3.2008 which are reproduced above are seen carefully, it is clear that what the defendants have stated that they arrived at the figure of Rs.17,50,000/- after discussion with the sons of the plaintiff by explaining that the higher rate of interest is unreasonable. Further, they had referred to the proposal to pay Rs.50,000/- p.m. two years ago. All this would indicate that it is nothing but sort of a request of the defendants to the plaintiff to give them time to pay or to accept a lesser sum or if that is not acceptable, as in the past give some instalments. Beyond that it cannot be stated that there was any agreement between the parties to accept the reduced amounts. This is immediately clarified by the plaintiff by his letter dated 17.3.2008 and in fact the said offer made earlier was not acceptable and indeed never finalised is clear from a letter dated 11.4.2008 of the defendants. They then on their own revised the figure of Rs.32,61,515/- . 8 SJ.341/2009 15] The defendants have not paid reduced sum as well as is clear from the further letter. 16] In such circumstances, I am of the view that the defendants have admitted their liability. The presumption in law with regard to the bills of exchange having executed for valid consideration is not rebutted at this stage. However, since the defendants are making a proposal in the year 2008, which proposal is of payment of Rs.32,61,515/-and was stated to have been confirmed by the plaintiff in the further letter, interest of justice would be served if the defendants are given opportunity to defend the claim in the suit but on condition of deposit of the Principal Sum under the Suit bills of exchange. 17] Accordingly, the Summons for Judgment stands disposed of by the following Order:- (i) Defendants to deposit principal amount under each bills of exchange as set out at Exhibits ‘J’ and ‘K’ to the plaint within a period of 12 weeks from today. (ii) If these principal sums are deposited, the defendants would be entitled to leave to defend and thereafter the suit stands transferred to the list of Commercial Causes with usual Directions to file Written Statement, Discovery and Inspection. 9 SJ.341/2009 (iii) In default, all consequences in law including a decree shall follow. 18] Liberty to apply for withdrawal after the deposit is made. [S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.] 10