1 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 130 OF 2008 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 3234 OF 2007 The Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai ...Plaintiff. V/s. The Pradeshiya Industrial & Investment Corporation of U.P. Ltd. ...Defendant. --- Mr.U.J. Makhija a/w Mr. Wilson George i/b M/s Motiwala & Co., for the Plaintiff. Mr. R.S. Mishra , for the Defendant. ----- CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 7TH SEPTEMBER 2009 P.C. : 1. The suit is filed to recover a sum of Rs.12,77,37,745/- together with interest at 13.85% p.a. on the principal sum of Rs.5 crores and at 13% p.a. on the principal sum of Rs.2,50,00,000/-from 1.11.2007 till payment. 2. The Plaintiff desired to take out a Chamber Summons for amendment of the plaint by reducing the claim. I did not permit an 2 adjournment on this ground in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this court by which the Plaintiff is entitled to do so at the time of the hearing of the Summons for Judgment. Mr. Makhija, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff tenders a revised claim in the sum of Rs.10,58,25,000/-. 3. The claim arises in respect of the two bonds issued by the Defendant and subscribed to by the Plaintiff. It is not necessary to set out the details of the bonds as they are admitted. Suffice it to state that the bonds are in the sum of Rs.5,00,00,000/- and Rs.2,50,00,000/- carrying interest at 13.85% p.a. and 13.4% p.a. payable half yearly respectively. 4. That the bonds subscribed were to by the Plaintiff is not denied. That the Plaintiff paid the amounts thereunder is not denied. That the claim in suit has not been paid by the Defendant is not denied. The claim is therefore admitted. 5. It was submitted on behalf of the Defendant that the amounts were not repaid due to certain financial difficulties faced by the Defendant on account of the Defendant’s debtors not having paid their dues to the Defendant. 6. It was further submitted that the Plaintiff and the Defendant are Government organizations and therefore the matter must be sorted out 3 amicably. Indeed several meetings were held to settle the matter but admittedly no settlement has been arrived at. It is further stated that several other creditors have accepted the settlement on the basis of being paid only the principal amount, and that the Plaintiff should also settle the matter on the same basis. 7. I am afraid, I am unable to force the settlement even between the Government organizations. That would have to be done between the parties themselves. 8. It was further submitted that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit. 9. The Plaintiff has averred that the amounts were subscribed from Mumbai; that the amounts were paid by cheques issued from Mumbai; that the bonds were received in Mumbai; that the interst on the bonds were received in Mumbai and that the principal and the interest are payable in Mumbai. Leave under provision XII of Letters of Patent has been granted by this court by an order dated 23.10.2007. No application to revoke the same has been made. The submission is therefore rejected. 10. It was contended that the amounts claimed in the suit have been guaranteed by the Government of Uttar Pradesh and that a suit has been filed on the guarantee. That would make no difference as the Plaintiff 4 has an independent cause of action against the Defendant as well as the Government of Uttar Pradesh. 11. In the circumstances, there is no defence to the suit. Leave to defend is rejected. The Summons for Judgment is made absolute and the suit is decreed in the sum of Rs.10,58,25,000/- together with interest on the principal sum of Rs.7,50,00,000/- at 9% p.a. from 1.11.2007 till payment and/or realisation and costs. 12. In order to enable the parties to settle the matter, this order and judgment is stayed up to and inclusive 31.12.2009. Refund as per rules.