IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMARY SUIT NO.2522 OF 2008 M/s.Terraco India Pvt. Ltd. .... Plaintiff V/s. Pandhe Construction and Ors. .... Defendants Mr.Baptist D'Souza i/by M/s.Ashwinikumar & Co., for the plaintiff. None for the defendants. CORAM : D.G.KARNIK, J. DATED : 02nd APRIL, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff. None present for the defendants. The suit is placed on board as undefended suit as the defendants have not filed appearance despite service of writ of summons. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant No.2 is a Proprietor of defendant No.1 firm and also a Director of defendant No.3 company. Defendant No.3 placed orders on the plaintiff's company for doing certain work. The work was carried out by the plaintiff and the bills for the work were submitted. The defendants failed and neglected to make the payment. The plaintiff by letters and notices demanded the payment, but the defendants failed to pay or reply. The defendants, however, made part payments. The suit is filed to recover the balance amount. 2 3. The plaintiff has produced on record the original documents and has also filed affidavit of Halady Venkatraya Prabhu, Manager of the plaintiff's company. In the affidavit, Mr.Prabhu has proved the original documents which have been filed on record. He has stated that the defendants placed two orders. The first order and xerox copy of the second order are produced on record at Exh.A and D. In the affidavit, Mr.Prabhu, has stated that in pursuance of the said orders the plaintiff carried out the work and submitted the bills/invoices, office copies of which are placed on record. The bills were received by the defendants and as they did not pay the amount, notices were issued to the defendants, the office copies of the notices are produced on record at Exh.F1, G1, G3, H and J. Acknowledgments/receipts have also been filed on record. 4. Perusal of the record and documents shows that the orders were placed by defendant No.3 which is a Private Limited Company. The orders was not placed by defendant No.2 in his individual capacity or as a proprietor of defendant No.1. The bills were also raised in the name of defendant No.3 Company and not in the name of defendant No.1 and 2. Defendant No.1 is a proprietary concern of defendant No.2. They cannot be personally liable for the debts of the defendant No.3 company. The suit against the defendant Nos.1 and 2 deserves to be dismissed. 5. So far as the defendant No.3 is concerned, it has not appeared, nor raised any defence. Plaintiff has filed on record original documents as well as affidavit of evidence. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the plaintiff. 6. As regards the claim for interest prior to the date of the filing of the suit, learned counsel for the plaintiff states that the plaintiff gives up the claim for past interest. He however, prays for interest from the date of the suit. Under Section 34 of the C.P.C., interest can be awarded from the date of the suit. In view of the above, I pass the the following order. : O R D E R : 1. The suit is dismissed as against defendant Nos.1 & 2. 2. Suit of the plaintiff is decreed against defendant No.3, as follows. Defendant No.3 shall pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.3,93,355 together with interest thereon @ 6% p.a. from the date of the suit till the date of the decree and @ 12% p.a. from the date of the decree till payment and all costs of the suit. ( D.G.KARNIK, J. )