1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.135 OF 2008 WITH SUMMARY SUIT NO.3248 OF 2007 WIB Distributors Pvt. Ltd. ....Plaintiff V/s. Bagga Millennium Liquors (I) Pvt.Ltd. ....Defendant Mr.Shekhar S. Shetye i/b M/s.Pandya Gandhi & Co. for the Plaintiff. Mr.Y.D. Divekar i/b M/s.Divekar & Co. for the Defendant. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 25TH AUGUST, 2009. P.C. :- 1. The suit is filed to recover a sum of Rs.1,21,85,000/- together with interest at 15% p.a. on the principal sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/-. 2. The claim in suit arises on account of an inter corporate deposit (ICD) of Rs.1,00,00,000/- made by the Plaintiff with the Defendant. By a letter dated 18.5.2005, the Plaintiff recorded that as per the Defendant’s request, it was enclosing its cheque in the sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- as an ICD for the period of twelve months bearing interest at 15% p.a. and that interest would be paid on quarterly basis after deducting the tax. The Defendant was asked to confirm its acceptance on the duplicate copy of the letter. The Defendant endorsed its confirmation at the foot of the copy of the said letter and forwarded the same under cover of its letter dated 23.8.2005. In this letter, the Defendant expressly stated that it returned a copy of the Plaintiff’s said letter duly signed “as a token or our acceptance bearing interest at 15% p.a.”. 2 3. In the subsequent correspondence, the Defendant repeatedly referred to the ICD and confirmed that it would repay the same with interest. The Defendant also forwarded interest from time to time. 4. It is unnecessary to refer to the further letters in this regard, as the entire correspondence is admitted. 5. On behalf of the Defendant, it was admitted that the said sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- was in fact accounted in the records of the Defendant also as a inter corporate deposit. Thus as far as the record is concerned, the entire transaction stands established and in fact admitted. 6. It was however contended that the said sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- was actually only to be treated as a trade deposit by the Plaintiff with the Defendant. The arrangement, it was contended was oral. 7. It is impossible to accept this defence which must be termed as moonshine. There is nothing on record by way of even circumstantial evidence which establishes the defence. There is no pleading, much less evidence to indicate any transaction in respect of which the trade deposit was to be kept or maintained. Admittedly, there has not been a single transaction of sale or supply or of any other nature by the Defendant to the Plaintiff of any goods. 8. In the circumstances, there is no defence to the suit. 9. The Summons for Judgment is made absolute and the suit is decreed as prayed for. Refund as per rules.