-1- bpk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMARY SUIT NO. 3185 OF 2006 Alta Leasing & Finance Ltd. A company registered and Incorporated under the Provisions of Companies Act 1956 and having its registered office At Alta Bhavan, 532, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar, Mumbai 400 028 : Plaintiff v/s 1. Auto Valves & Engineering Components Ltd.Gat no. 397/1/2 Charoli Khurd, Vadgaon, Ghenand Road, Taluka Khed District Pune 412105 2. Satischandra Maheshwar Soman Director and Guarntor, of Defendant no.1 having his address at 07 Sailee Blossom, 75 Sanewadi-Aundhi Pune 411 007 3. Ranganth Vidyut Prakash Guarntor of defendant no.1 43, Lotus Necco Gardens Viman Nagar, Pune 411 014 : Defendants Ms. Shaila U. Pathak i/b M/s. Pathak K. Asociates Advocate for Plaintiffs None for defendants Coram : R.Y. Ganoo,J. Date : 2.4.2009 ORAL JUDGEMENT: 1. The plaintiffs have instituted this suit for recovery of Rs. 1413092/- and for interest as set out in prayer clause (a) and for costs as set out in prayer clause (b). The plaintiffs had taken out Summons for Judgment no. 131/07 against defendant no.2 as defendant no. 2 had filed vakalatnama through -2- his advocate. Defendant nos. 1 and 3 have not filed vakalatnama and therefore there was no question of taking out Summons for Judgment against defendant nos. 1 and 3. The said Summons for Judgement was heard and decided on merits and by order dt. 9.7.2007 defendant no.2 was directed to deposit in this court a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- within 16 weeks from the date of the said order. The defendant no.2 challenged the said order dt. 9.7.2007 by filing Appeal no. 77/2008. That appeal was decided on 26.4.2008 and defendant no. 2 was directed to deposit Rs. 5 lacks instead of Rs. 7,50,000/- within two weeks. That order has not been complied with by defendant no.2. Since defendant no.1 and 3 had not filed written statements and as defendant no.2 did not comply with order of deposit plaintiffs moved this court for exparte decree and the suit was posted for exparte decree in accordance with provisions of order 37 of CPC. Since this suit is being disposed of in accordance with provisions of order 37 there is no question of framing formal issues. Few facts necessary for the disposal of this suit are as under. 2. Plaintiffs had advanced loan to defendant no.1 under Higher Purchase agreement dt. 14.7.2000 to the tune of Rs. 9,22,400/-. Under lease agreement dt. -3- 27.8.1999 another loan of Rs. 727717.12 was granted to the defendant no.1. The hypothication agreement wasw in respect of to certain machinery required by defendant no.1 for their business and the said machinery was hypothecated to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs paid monies to the vendors of the said machinery so that the said machinery could be supplied to defendant no.1 at the factory premises. The vendors of said machinery M/s Vinita Engineering company had issued two receipts dt. 20.7.2000 and 25.9.2000 so as to certify that they have received Rs. 3,00,000/-, Rs.3,75000/- and Rs. 1,47,400/- towards the costs of the machinery to be supplied to defendant no.1. The said fact is confirmed by defendant no.1 and it is admitted by defendant no.1 that the machinery has been received by them. The defendant no.1 were required to repay the loan in accordance with the Higher Purchase Agreement and Lease agreement. Defendant no.2, the director of Defendant no.1 and guarantor had guarantied repayment of money advanced to defendant no.1. Defendant no.3 the guarantor had also undertaken to repay the monies to the plaintiffs. 3. The plaintiffs claim that the last instalment so far as Higher Purchase Agreement was paid on -4- 11.3.2005 to the tune of Rs. 28,000/- and in regard to the lease agreement Rs. 1 lac were paid on 16.9.2004 and thereafter no monies were repaid by any of the defendants. Keeping in view the aforesaid two dates the institution of the suit in the year 2006 is well within the period of limitation. 4. According to the plaintiffs as on 30.6.2006 a sum of Rs. 1413092/- was payable by the defendants and that is how the plaintiffs have prayed for a decree to that extent. The plaintiffs have also prayed for a decree for future interest at the rate of 9% per annum on Rs. 7,89,470/- being the principal amount then outstanding on the date of the filing of the suit. 5. In the absence of the written statement from any of the defendants the averments in the plaint have gone unchallenged. This being summary suit the plaintiffs are entitled to reliefs sought in the plaint particularly when defendant no.2 has not complied with the orders regarding deposit of money and has not filed written statement and defendant nos. 1 and 3 have not filed appearances. 6. Even otherwise I have considered the case of -5- the plaintiffs on the basis of evidence on affidavit and compilation of documents placed before the court and in my view the plaintiffs have made out a case of passing a decree in their favour. Plaintiffs have been able to explain as to how the sum of Rs. 1413092/- is payable on the date of the filing of the suit. Plaintiffs have claimed interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization on Rs. 7,89,470/- and the said claim can be accepted. Plaintiffs ofcourse are entitled to receive costs of the suit. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid I pass the following decree. ORDER . Defendants jointly or severally do pay to the plaintiffs Rs. 1413092/-. . Defendant jointly or severally do pay to plaintiff interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization on Rs. 7,89,470/-. . Defendants jointly or severally do pay to plaintiff costs of the suit. (R.Y. Ganoo, J)