IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.1134 OF 2003 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.558 OF 2003 M/s.Grasim Industries Ltd. .. Plaintiffs Vs. 1. M/s.M.D.Enterprises 2. S.K.Enterprises .. Defendants WITH SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.1135 OF 2003 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.386 OF 2003 M/s.Grasim Industries Ltd. .. Plaintiffs Vs. 1. M/s.Anjani CHS Ltd. 2. S.K.Enterprises .. Defendants WITH SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.1136 OF 2003 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.557 OF 2003 M/s.Grasim Industries Ltd. .. Plaintiffs Vs. 1. M/s.Pandey Builders 2. S.K.Enterprises .. Defendants WITH SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.1137 OF 2003 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.556 OF 2003 M/s.Grasim Industries Ltd. .. Plaintiffs Vs. 1. M/s.Royal Enterprises 2. S.K.Enterprises .. Defendants Mr.Khan i/b Meharia and Co. for the plaintiffs Mr.B.R.Vishwakarma for the defendants CORAM : S.U.KAMDAR, J CORAM : S.U.KAMDAR, J CORAM : S.U.KAMDAR, J DATED : 23RD AUGUST, 2005 DATED : 23RD AUGUST, 2005 DATED : 23RD AUGUST, 2005 P.C.: . The present suits are filed for summary suit in respect of goods sold and delivered. Invoices and Challans show that the goods are sold to defendant no.1. Summons for Judgment is only addressed to defendant no.2. There is no document to show any liability of defendant no.2 on record. The only contention raised by the plaintiff is that defendant no.2 is the promoter of the defendant no.1 and therefore the suits are filed as against defendant no.2. The said suits are not maintainable. Defendant no.2 is a separate entity known as S.K.Enterprises. In that view of the matter, Summons for Judgments are dismissed. Unconditional leave to defend is granted. As against defendant no.1, suit is for ex-parte decree on Monday, 29.8.05.