*1* sj.264.09.ss.633.09 kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.264 OF 2009 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.633 OF 2009 Suryakant D.Malgaonkar. ..Plaintiff -Versus- Shantaram B. Naik. ..Defendant .......... Y.R.Shah, for the Plaintiff. S.Karmarkar and R.R.Dixit, for the Defendant. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 06th December, 2010. P.C. 1 This Summary Suit is filed by the Plaintiff on dishonoured cheques, copies of which are annexed at Exhibits-B, B-1 and B-2 to the plaint. 2 It is stated that after the Plaintiff and the Defendant came in contact, the Defendant represented him that on investing Rs.1.50 lacs in the firms of which the Defendant is a proprietor namely M/s Shubhangi Enterprises and M/s Gurudev Travel Connexions, the Defendant will purchase a vehicle in the Plaintiff’s name and give it on hire within three months and execute necessary documents in favour of the Plaintiff evidencing his ownership. Further the Defendant assured that he will pay Rs.20,000/- as monthly compensation from the income through the vehicle. The Plaintiff invested a sum of Rs.1.50 lacs and the details of the investment are set out in paragraph No.5 of the plaint. It is stated that *2* sj.264.09.ss.633.09 since no returns were forthcoming, the Defendant towards discharge of part of the debt issued three cheques and assured that they will be honoured. The cheques were dishonoured on presentation with remark “insufficient funds”. In such circumstances that the instant suit is filed as summary suit alleging that the demand notice was issued but despite receipt thereof, the Plaintiff was not paid sums/amount of the cheques. 3 In the affidavit in reply seeking leave to defend, it is stated that the Plaintiff has invested money with M/s Gurudev Tavel Connexions which is owned by Sandeep Kandalkar and the said Sandeep is necessary party. Further it is stated that Sandeep cheated not only the Plaintiff but the Defendant as well and presently criminal proceedings are going on against him. Account of Sandeep was seized during the course of investigation. Although there are several denials, what is material to note is that in paragraph No.6, the Defendant states that he received the amount of Rs.1.30 lacs for and on behalf of M/s Gurudev Travel Connextions and accordingly, he issued receipt therefor. Further he denies that he represented the Plaintiff that the receipt of balance sum of Rs. 20,000/- will be given. In paragraph No.7 it is stated that whatever money invested by the Plaintiff is invested and/or paid to M/s Gurudev Travel Connextions belonging to Sandeep Kandalkar and the Defendant was only his agent. It is stated that though the Defendant was not liable, however, on persistent demand by the Plaintiff, he issued three personal cheques for Rs.15,000/- each for the assurance of the Plaintiff and it was agreed that the same would not be deposited. Thereafter, there are denials. 4 The Plaintiff has explained in the rejoinder affidavit that he does not know Sandeep and the money was given to the Defendant at his residence and he accepted it and gave the receipt which shows his residential address. Therefore, the contention that Sandeep is necessary *3* sj.264.09.ss.633.09 party, has no basis in law. Further it is contended that admission of liability is clear or else the cheques would not have been issued and particularly the Defendant admits receipt of Rs.1.30 lacs. In such circumstances, it is contended that the Summons for Judgment be made absolute. 5 After having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties for sometime and finding that the suit is based on the dishonoured cheques and that the Defendant admitting that the cheques have been issued by him, they bear his signatures and a sum of Rs.1.30 lacs was accepted but was not on behalf of himself but as an agent of Sandeep, then, the interest of justice would be served if conditional leave to defend the suit is granted by securing the sum under three cheques. 6 Since it is brought to my notice that the cheques have been issued way back in the year 2006 and have been dishonoured, therefore, the amount thereunder be directed to be deposited in this Court; in my view, directing the Defendant to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- within a period of eight weeks from today would serve the ends of justice. 7 Accordingly, the following order:- (1) On the Defendant depositing in this Court a sum of Rs. 50,000/- within a period of eight weeks from today, there will be conditional leave to defend the suit. There upon the suit shall be transferred to the list of commercial causes with usual direction to file the Written Statement, discovery and inspection. (2) In default of deposit of the aforesaid amount, all consequences in law shall follow. (3) The Summons for Judgment is disposed of accordingly. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)