1 sj148.10.sxw ssm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.148 OF 2010 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 693 OF 2009 Narendra B. Zota ......Plaintiff. Vs. BPL Lifesciences & Anr. ......Defendants. Mr. Minesh K. Shah for the Plaintiff. None for the Defendants. CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE :- 11/11/2011. P.C.:- Called twice. In a Summary Suit, the Plaintiff has claimed an amount of `2,12,737/- towards non-payment of the amount though goods were delivered as agreed. The Suit is within limitation. As averred and as purchase orders are part of the record, the name of the buyer is shown as Defendant No.2. Defendant No.2 though appeared, did not file any reply. The averments, therefore, so made against Defendant No.2 referring to this transaction and the payment of the amount remained 2 sj148.10.sxw ssm uncontroverted. 2 Defendant No.1 has filed reply to the Summons for Judgment but could not deny the contents of the letter dated 8 October 2008, whereby there is a clear admission with regard to the outstanding principle amount of `1,59,469/- in the following words. "All these factors have resulted in delay of making payments to you towards your outstanding dues. Therefore once again we would thank you to bear with us for further few months and in the meantime, we shall make all the necessary effort to expedite your payment at the earliest. 3 The defence so raised in the reply in no way support the case that the Plaintiff had supplied the goods at Sangli and therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction. The averments as well as the documents on record show that the parties entered into the transaction at Mumbai. Defendant No.1 has in fact deposited three cheques towards the security for the amount of the goods which are actually delivered to Defendant No.2 at the instance of Defendant No.1. The transaction even if any between Defendant Nos.1 and 2 just cannot be the defence in view of above averments and documents on record which show the acknowledgment, liability of Defendant No.1 readwith Defendant No. 2. 3 sj148.10.sxw ssm 4 In view of above, in my view the defence so raised by the Defendants is sham and bogus and just to avoid the liability and to delay the payment. 5 However, considering the nature of business, I am not inclined to accept the case of the Plaintiff to grant interest @ 24% p.a. on principle amount of `1,59,469/-, so mentioned in particulars of claim but it is restricted @ 12% p.a. instead of 24% p.a. 6 In the result, the Summons for Judgment as well as the Suit are disposed of to the above extent. There shall be no order as to costs. However, the parties are still at liberty to settle the matter. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)