1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.156 OF 2008 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.3540 OF 2007 Trupti Bhavesh Sanghavi & Anr. ....Plaintiffs V/s. CRC Carrier Ltd. & Anr. ....Defendants Mr.Tushar Goradia for the Plaintiff. Ms.Leena Temkar for the Defendants. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 21ST JULY, 2009. P.C. :- 1. The suit is filed to recover a sum of Rs.2,85,193/- together with interest at 15% p.a. on Rs.1,39,000/- from the date of the filing of the suit till payment. 2. The suit is based on a bill of exchange dated 21.9.2000 drawn by Defendant No.1 and accepted by Defendant No.2. The bill of exchange is in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. 3. The part payments were made as evidenced in writing in the form of the letters dated 7.7.2003 and 31.12.2004.The claim in suit after getting the credit for part payment received. 4. The first defence is that the Director who signed the bill of exchange on behalf of Defendant No.1 had no authority to do so. The submission is not well founded. That the bill of exchange was drawn by the 2 Director is not denied. This is an aspect of indoor management with which the Plaintiff is not concerned. 5. The next defence is that the Plaintiff is not entitled to the interest at 15% p.a. There is no substance in this defence. The bill of exchange does not mention any rate of interest. Thus the Plaintiff is in fact entitled to the interest at 18% p.a. but has restricted her claim for interest to 15% p.a. 6. The last defence is that the suit is barred under the provisions of Bombay Money Lenders Act. This contention is also without any substance. There are no averments in the affidavit in reply which establish that the Plaintiff indulged in the business of money lending. The solitary transaction would not be governed by the Act. 7. It was also contended that Defendant No.2 had not signed the bill of exchange in acceptance thereof. I am unable to accept the same. Defendant No.2 was the Director of the first Defendant Company. The first Defendant Company in the aforesaid correspondence admitted the fact that the bill of exchange had been accepted by Defendant No.2. Further there was no reply to the Plaintiff’s advocate demanding payment which was also addressed to Defendant No.2. 8. In the circumstances, the Summons for Judgment is made absolute and the suit is decreed as prayed. Refund as per rules.