1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 268 OF 2007 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 1229 OF 2007 WITH SUMMARY SUIT NO. 1229 OF 2007 Lona Industries Ltd. ... Plaintiff Vs Sudha Industrial Corporation Ltd. ... Defendant Ms. Shaila V. Pathak i/b M/s. Pathak Associates for the Plaintiff. Ms. Manisha Pant i/b Bhave & Co. for the Defendant. CORAM: S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 9TH DECEMBER, 2009. P.C. : The suit is filed to recover a sum of Rs.27,88,634/- together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the sum of Rs.19,20,660/- from the date of filing of the suit till payment. 2 2. The claim arises on account of goods sold and delivered by the Plaintiff to the Defendant on the terms and conditions contained in and evidenced by four invoices. 3. That the goods were sold and supplied by the Plaintiff is not denied. Further, the Defendant by its letter dated 10th September, 2004 expressly admitted that the sum of Rs.37,12,500/- was due and payable and further confirmed that it would pay the same within fifteen to twenty days and apologised for the delay in making payment. 4. Thereafter, part-payments were made, leaving the claim in the suit outstanding. Despite several reminders the Defendant failed and neglected to pay the amount claimed in the suit. 5. It was contended that the goods were defective. However, despite the various demands for payment, no such contention was raised in the correspondence. Further, as noted earlier, by the said letter dated 10th September, 2005, the Defendant had admitted its 3 liability and never raised this contention. The said contention obviously, therefore, is an after-thought. 6. On a previous occasion, a statement was made as recorded in the order dated 29th April, 2009, that the Official Liquidator had been appointed as a Provisional Liquidator of the Defendant-company. In view thereof, the suit was stayed by the said order pending leave to be obtained by the Plaintiff under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956. However, as no such order has been produced, there is no need for the Plaintiff to seek or obtain leave under section 446. 7. It was then contended that now the Official Liquidator has been appointed in respect of the Defendant. Orders in this regard were relied upon, in Company Petition Nos.982 and 983 of 2007 both dated 24th July, 2008 and in Company Petitions No.534, 535 and 536 of 2008, all dated 5th September, 2008. These orders, however, merely admitted the Petition for winding up. None of these orders have appointed the Official Liquidator. 4 8. In the circumstances, leave to defend the suit is rejected. The Summons for Judgment is made absolute and the Suit is decreed as prayed. 9. Refund as per Rules.