1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.294 OF 2000 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.5307 OF 1999 Maya Rasayan Ltd. ..Plaintiffs. Vs. Ajcon Capital Markets Ltd. ..Defendants. Mr.D.H. Mehta i/b. Mr.J.P. Singh for the Plaintiffs. None for the Defendants. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 28TH JULY, 2009 P.C. :- The suit is filed to recover an amount of Rs.39,75,000/- together with interest at 18% per annum on the principal sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- from 1.7.1999 till payment. 2. The Plaintiffs had placed an inter-corporate deposit of Rs. 25,00,000/- with the Defendants in respect whereof the Defendants had executed a promissory note which stipulates interest at 18% per annum. 3. A cheque in the sum of Rs.25,00,000/- was issued by the 2 Defendants but was dishonoured. A further cheque of Rs.1,87,397.25 towards interest, issued by the Defendants was also dishonoured. 4. The amounts due by the Defendants to the Plaintiffs were confirmed from time to time. The last confirmation (Exhibit “H”) confirms an amount of Rs.33,44,825/- as being due and payable on 31.8.1997. 5. By an earlier order dated 4.6.2007 in this very Summons for Judgment, conditional leave had been granted to the Defendants upon depositing a sum of Rs.30,00,000/-. The Division Bench however disposed of the Defendants Appeal against the said order inter-alia by permitting the Plaintiff to amend its particulars of claim and remitted the Summons for Judgment, which is now taken up for hearing. 6. Mr.Mehta fairly pointed out the affidavit in reply filed by the Defendants. The same discloses no defence. As far as the issue of the pledged shares is concerned, the Plaintiff has given up its security. The Plaintiff was not bound to exercise its rights in respect of the security. The averments in the affidavit are not sufficient to hold that the Plaintiffs carried on the business of money lending. The case of coersion requires to be stated to be rejected. There is nothing on record which even remotely indicates that the Defendants who have admittedly received the money and not repaid the same, were coerced into executing any of the documents. 3 7. From the above facts, it is clear that there is no defence to the suit. The claim for interest after the amendment is in consonance with the contract and the documents. 8. In the circumstances, the Summons for Judgment is made absolute and the suit is decreed as prayed. Refnd as per rules.