1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO. 3835 OF 1997 GIC Housing Finance Ltd . ..Plaintiffs versus Seasons Builders Pvt Ltd. & Ors. ..Defendants Mr. Sandip Barve i/b B.K.Barve & Co. for Plaintiffs Mr. C.D.Patel i/b Ranjit & Co. for Defendant Nos.1 & 2. CORAM : DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD , J. DATED : 29th JULY, 2009. P.C. : 1. The 1st Defendant by a letter dated 25.07.1995, applied to the Plaintiffs for a short term loan for the construction of a commercial- cum- residential housing project on a plot of land bearing plot No.83, Sector No.6 of Koparkhirane, Navi Mumbai, with a proposed finance cost of Rs.128.69 lacs. By a letter dated 20.09.1995, the Plaintiffs sanctioned a loan of Rs.40,00,000/- to the Defendants. The City & Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. (CIDCO), had by a letter dated 06.11.1995 granted permission for the mortgage of the land in favour of the Plaintiffs as security for the project loan. The 1st Defendant executed an Agreement dated 14.10.1995, which 2 was signed by Defendant Nos.2 & 3, on behalf of 1st Defendant. This was together with a letter of indemnity dated 27.10.1995. Defendant Nos. 2 & 3 executed a Joint Deed of Guarantee on 27.10.1995 and a promissory note dated 14.11.1995, by which they promised to pay on demand a sum of Rs.40,00,000/-, with interest @ 22% p.a. By a letter dated 29.10.1997, the Defendants deposited the title documents of the suit property with an intent to create a mortgage by deposit of title deeds. 2. The Plaintiffs disbursed an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- on 14.11.1995. The 1st Defendant issued cheques for the payment of interest, out of which three cheques dated 28.12.1997, towards interest, a cheque dated 01.03.1997 towards the first installment of Rs.10,000/- and the cheque dated 01.06.1997 towards the second installment, were returned on presentation to the bankers. Upon the default of the 1st Defendant, the Plaintiffs issued a notice of demand dated 08.08.1997, recalling the loan and calling upon the Defendants to pay an amount of Rs.31,39,592/- 3. Defendant Nos.1 & 2 were served with a Writ of Summons and despite having entered appearance through Advocates, failed to file a Written Statement. Defendant No.3 was served by substituted service. 3 The suit has been filed for the recovery of the amount due and outstanding in respect of the loan facility granted to the 1st Defendant. The Plaintiffs have relied upon the Affidavit of evidence of its Group Head and Constituted Attorney and on a compilation of the original documents. The witness has verified the correctness of what is stated in the Affidavit. The compilation includes the letter of sanction, Loan Agreement, Indemnity , Deed of Guarantee, Promissory Note and the letter evidencing the deposit of title deeds. In the absence of any contest by the Defendants, the claim is uncontroverted. 4. The Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Defendant Nos.1 & 2 states that, he has received no instructions from his client. The averments contained in the plaint and the evidence, have gone un- challenged. The claim has been duly proved on the basis of the evidence on record. The suit shall accordingly stand decreed in terms of prayer Clauses (a) to (c) with the modification that the Plaintiffs will be entitled to interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of the suit till payment or realisation. There shall be a refund of Court fees, if any, as per rules. (DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.)