IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMARY SUIT NO.4657 OF 1997 Ispat Industries Ltd. ..Plaintiffs Vs. Vikram C. Shah ..Defendants Mr. A. B. Kapadia i/b M/s. Daphtary Fereira & Divan for the Plaintiffs None for the Defendants CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DATE: 10th September , 2009 P.C. : 1. The Suit has been instituted for the recovery of an amount of Rs.1.40 crores. In pursuance of a request received by the Plaintiffs from Vikram Projects Ltd., a Lease Agreement was entered into on 9th March 1994 between the Plaintiffs and the aforesaid Company. The Lease Agreement was signed by the Defendant on behalf of the Company. The Defendant was at the material time a Managing Director of the Company. The Defendant also executed a personal guarantee by which he guaranteed the due payment of the lease rentals and of other sums due by the Company. The Company had handed over to the Plaintiffs 12 post dated cheques each of Rs.11,66,256/- A personal guarantee was executed by the Defendant, in consideration of the Plaintiff having agreed to give machinery on lease to the Company, under a Lease Agreement dated 9th March 1994. The guarantee was limited to an amount of Rs.1.40 crores. 2. Out of the 12 post dated cheques furnished by the Company to the Plaintiffs, three cheques aggregating to Rs.34,98,768/- were honoured. The rest were returned unpaid upon presentation. The Plaintiffs have instituted complaints u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which are pending. 3. By a letter dated 10th March 1997, addressed to the Defendant, the Plaintiffs invoked the Guarantee. The Defendant by his letter dated 21st March 1997, revoked the Personal Guarantee. The case of the Plaintiffs is that the Guarantee executed by the Defendant being a continuing Guarantee / Security, the Defendant is liable to pay the amount of Rs.1.40 crores thereunder. The Company was ordered to be wound up by an order dated 25th June 1998 in Company Petition No.52 of 1997. Accordingly the Company against whom the suit was also filed was dropped as a party. 4. The Defendant has not entered appearance, despite service of the Writ of Summons. The averments contained in the Plaint have not been controverted. The Plaintiffs have relied upon an Affidavit of examination- in-chief of a Constituted Attorney who has verified the correctness of what is stated therein. The Plaintiffs have also relied upon a Compilation of the documents. It has been averred in the Affidavit of evidence that the original documents have been filed in Case No.2269/SS/2005 before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate 7th Court, Dadar. Certified copies of the documents have been obtained from the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate. The Compilation of documents includes, the Guarantee executed by the Defendant on 9th March 1994. In view of the obligation assumed by the Defendant under the Agreement and in the absence of any contest, the suit would have to be decreed. The Suit will accordingly stand decreed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (c). 5. The original documents filed with the compilation are, on the request made by the Counsel for the Plaintiffs, permitted to be returned to Counsel for the Plaintiffs by the Registry, subject to verification of the photo copies of the documents. (Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud, J)