1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMARY SUIT NO. 1118 OF 2002 Hindustan Dorr-Oliver Ltd. ...Plaintiffs Vs. Oswal Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd. ...Defendants Mr.H.Toor i/b. Cr. Bayley & Co. for Plaintiffs None for Defendants CORAM: SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED: 2ND JULY, 2008 P.C. 1. The Plaintiffs have filed this suit for recovery of the amounts under Bank Guarantee No.28 of 2008 dated 15th April, 1998 and the extension of the Bank Guarantee dated 6th April, 1998 upon wrongful invocation of the Bank Guarantee as well as for supervision costs incurred by the Plaintiffs for supervising and advising upon the usage of the Plaintiffs' machinery supplied to the Defendants. The Plaintiffs have shown the liquidated amount of Rs.7,41,741.41 payable to the Plaintiffs with interest of 18% p.a thereon. Consequently the Plaintiff' s claim is for Rs.6,65,000 on account of the bank guarantee given for 2 defects, if any, found in the goods supplied to the Plaintiffs and Rs.76741.41 on account of receivables which are stated to be supervision costs. 2. The written contract upon which the Summary Suit is filed are contained in the bank guarantee and the extension of bank guarantee as well as in the letter of indent shown as the notification of Award dated 4th March, 1993. The Plaintiffs rely upon Clause H of the letter of indent dated 4th March, 1998 and clause 1 of the extension of bank guarantee dated 6th April, 1999. 3. Plaintiffs have filed the affidavit of service showing service upon the Defendants through the office of Sheriff of Mumbai on 16th August, 2002. The affidavit of service is taken on record. 4. The Defendants have entered appearance through their Vakalatnama sought to be filed on 25th September, 2002. The Vakalatnama is not filed within time. The Defendant Company not entered appearance within 10 days as required. 5. The Plaintiffs' Advocate has shown me a copy of the 3 application by way of Chamber Summons sought to be moved by the Defendants on 25th September, 2002. The notice to the Plaintiff' s Advocate dated 23rd September, 2002 is received on 25th September, 2002 by the Plaintiff' s Attorney. The Advocate on behalf of the Plaintiff states that no such application was moved. Consequently the delay in filing the appearances has not been condoned. Hence, the Summons for Judgment is not taken out. 6. Upon considering the Plaintiffs documents Ex-parte decree is required to be passed. 7. The Plaintiffs documents are taken on record and marked Exhibit-A (colly) . 8. Suit is decreed as prayed. No order as to costs. 9. The Plaintiffs shall be returned the original documents upon producing the xerox copies of the documents. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)