: 1 : SJ-50-09=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.50 OF 2009 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.3189 OF 2008 Reiters India Pvt. Ltd. .. Plaintiffs v/s. AAA Comdex (A Division of Sun Organic Industries Pvt. Ltd. ) .. Defendants ......... Ms. Padmaja Dholakia with Sujata Helekar i/by Dholakia Law Associates for the plaintiffs Mr. A.K. Tripathi i/by S.R. Tiwari for the defendants ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 25th OCTOBER, 2010 P.C. : 1. The plaintiffs and the defendants entered into an agreement. A copy of which is at page 19 to the plaint. Plaintiffs were to render certain services in the nature of supplying information to the defendants. Exhibit “B” and Exhibit “C” are the letters by which certain information was sought by the defendants from the plaintiffs. They are in the nature of order forms. The plaintiffs rendered such services and issued invoices which are at Exh. ‘N’, ‘O’ and ‘P’. : 2 : SJ-50-09=.sxw 2. The particulars of claim indicate that the plaintiffs have charged for the services rendered upto 30th November, 2006 interest @18% as per the clause 3.3 of the said agreement. According to the plaintiffs, defendants failed to comply with the demands and, therefore, summary suit has been filed which is maintainable. 3. The defendants have come out with the defence that the suit agreement which was followed at one point of time has been declared as null and void on account of the Press Note dated 24th April, 2006 issued by the Forward Market Commission, Mumbai. According to learned Counsel for the defendants on account of said Press Note, the suit agreement is declared as null and void and, therefore, no charges can be levied after the date of the Press Note i.e. 24th April, 2006. It is also the stand of the defendants that by letter dated 20th June 2006, the plaintiffs were informed about the said Press Note and effect thereof. As regards the service of this letter dated 20th June, 2006, it was contended that the postal receipt is enclosed to the reply. According to the defendants, the production of the said postal receipt is to be equated with proof of service of letter dated 20th June, 2006. According to the learned Counsel for the defendants it pertains to the text of letter dated 20th June, 2006. According to the learned Counsel for defendants on account of the text of letter dated 20th June, 2006, the contract come : 3 : SJ-50-09=.sxw to an end and, therefore, nothing is due and payable to the defendants in regard to the demand covered by the suit agreement. 4. As against the aforesaid stand of the defendants, learned Counsel for the plaintiffs had drawn my attention to the letter sent by defendants to the plaintiffs in the month of November, 2008 by which plaintiffs were requested to terminate the agreement and stop supplying information. 5. Having heard learned Counsel on both sides, it is clear that parties admit having entered into suit agreement at Exh.”A”. The defendants have not been able to prove the service of letter dated 30th June, 2006. Merely because postal receipt is enclosed showing that some letter has been sent to the plaintiffs is not sufficient. 6. So far as the reliance placed on the Press Note dated 24th April, 2006, I hold that by issuing a Press Note, provisions of law namely provisions of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952 cannot be modified and if that is so, the agreement entered into between the plaintiffs and defendants cannot be declared as null and void on account of Press Note. If at all, the defendants wanted that the transaction should come to an end by June, 2006 itself, there is no : 4 : SJ-50-09=.sxw reason for the defendants to write a letter to the plaintiffs in November, 2008 asking them to terminate the commercial relations with the plaintiffs. 7. The plaintiffs have charged the defendants upto November, 2006. According to the plaintiffs they are entitled to charge even for the month of December, 2006. After having considered the defence put up by the defendants as aforesaid, I am inclined to observe that defendants are not entitled to get unconditional leave. The stand of the defendants that on account of the Press Note, the contract come to an end and was declared as null and void is required to be proved by the defendants. 8. In my view, this is the fit case where the defendants should be put to terms as regards deposit of monies in the Court to defend the suit. Accordingly, following order is passed to dispose of the summons for judgment. ORDER (i) Upon defendants depositing in this Court a sum of Rs.2,62,000/- on or before 11th January, 2011, defendants are granted leave to defend. : 5 : SJ-50-09=.sxw (ii) Defendants to file written statement directly in the office on or before 21st January, 2011. (iii) Defendants to serve copy of the same upon advocate for the plaintiffs within 10 days from filing of the written statement in the office. There shall be no order as to cots. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)