1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.227 OF 2008 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.395 OF 2008 RADHYESHAM GOGRAJ KEJRIWAL ..PLAINTIFF VS. M/s. PRATHAM ENTERPRISES ..DEFENDANT Mr. N.B.Jadhav for the Plaintiff Mr Yogendra M. Kanchan i/b Ajay Rao for the Defendant CORAM: Smt. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 8th APRIL, 2009 P.C.: 1.The suit is filed upon three dishonoured cheques all dated 28.02.2005, for Rs.5 lacs and Rs.2.42 lacs marked as Exhibit-A, A-1 & A-2 to the plaint. The total sum of Rs.12.42 lacs payable under the said three cheques has been separately admitted and acknowledged under a writing dated 27.01.2004 of the Defendant. The Defendant who signed the cheques has also signed the Agreement / undertaking to make the payment of the total sum of 2 Rs.12.42 lacs represented by the three cheques issued in favour of the Plaintiff. The legal notice has remained unanswered. 2.The defence sought to be raised is that this court does not have territorial jurisdiction. Three cheques have been issued from the Defendant bank in Bombay. The writing dated 27.01.2004 has also been executed on stamp paper issued in Bombay. The writing has been confirmed by the Plaintiff also in Bombay. Both the parties carry on business in Bombay. The territorial jurisdiction of this court is undoubted. The Defendant' s Advocate himself state that Criminal proceedings initiated in Kerala have been dismissed on the ground of want of jurisdiction of that court. Hence this defence is of no substance. 3.On merits the defence sought to be raised is that the Agreement is not signed by the Defendant. The Defendant has admitted execution of the cheques. The Defendant claims that the cheques were only signed and blank cheques were issued. The signatures on the cheuqes of the Defendant is the same as that on the Agreement. Even slant of signature is the same. There is no substantial defence. The reliance upon in the case of Sunil Enterprises & Anr Vs. 3 SBI Commercial and International Bank Ltd, AIR 1998 Supreme Court 2317, is misplaced as in that case the defence was upon fraud that was alleged, pursuant to the collusion between the Plaintiffs and the officers of the Defendants. 4.In this suit no defence is shown. Summons for judgment is made absolute as prayed. Suit decreed as prayed. The Plaintiff's Advocate states that the original documents are filed in criminal court in which proceedings u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were initiated. The Plaintiffs shall apply for and obtain certified copies of the original documents and file them in the court. 5.Chamber Summons No.552 of 1990 is disposed of as infractuous. (Smt. Roshan Dalvi, J)