-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 565 OF 2009 & NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4304 OF 2009 IN SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 130 OF 2008 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 3234 OF 2007 The Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation ) of U.P. Limited )...Appellants versus The Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai ...Respondents Ms. S.P. Trivedi with Meera Mishra, instructed by M/s. A. Bharat & Co., for the appellants. Mr. U.J. Makhija, instructed by Motiwala & Company, for the respondents. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & R.V. MORE, JJ. DATE: DECEMBER 17, 2009. P.C. It is unfortunate that a Public Corporation has, after accepting the bond amount from the respondents, denied the just claim of the respondents. The respondents herein instituted Summary Suit No. 3234 of 2007 for recovery of the amount which they have invested with the present appellant-Corporation in the form of bonds. The validity of the said bonds was for seven years. Since the Appellant was not making good the payment, the respondents herein was -2- obliged to file the suit for recovery of the amount of Rs. 12,77,37,745/-. However, the respondents gave an application for revising the said claim by reducing the same to Rs. 10,58,25,000/- on the ground that the additional claim is time barred which was in connection with the interest component. The learned single Judge accordingly found that since there was no defence to the suit, leave to defend was rejected and the Summons for Judgment was made absolute and the suit was 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 1st November, 2007 till payment and/or realisation and costs. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants has fairly submitted that the Corporation had received the amount in the form of investment from the Respondents-plaintiff. She submitted that the Corporation sent a proposal in the year 2003-2004 requesting the Respondents-plaintiff to revise the rate of interest. She submitted that subsequently the appellant Corporation was not paying any interest to the respondents till the suit was filed. She submitted that under these circumstances it should be held that the suit is time barred. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code. She further submitted that the claim is arbitrarily reduced in the sense that without amending the plaint such claim could not have been reduced only by way of an -3- application. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length. It is unfortunate that a Public Corporation of the State of Uttar Pradesh, after accepting the amount towards the bond, has refused to make payment to another public body. It is not in dispute that the validity of bond was for seven years and on that basis the suit filed is within limitation. Since the Corporation was not paying interest to the plaintiff, the claim of interest has been deleted by the plaintiff from the suit. It cannot be denied that the principal claim towards the bond amount is within limitation considering the validity period of the bond. The learned counsel for the appellant is also not in a position to deny this aspect. It is true, as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, that even though initially suit was filed for Rs. 12,77,37,745/- , the same has been reduced to Rs. 10,58,25,000/- without amending the plaint. In this behalf, it is required to be noted that, according to the respondents, the additional claim which was in connection with the interest was time barred and that is how the respondents gave up that claim and by reduction of the said claim appellants are not put to any loss. It cannot be said that any prejudice would be caused to the appellants in any manner in this behalf. 5. So far as the argument regarding notice under Section 80 of the C.P.C. is concerned, it cannot be said that the appellant is said to be a “State” as -4- it is only a Corporation of the State Government and there is no requirement of any such notice and, therefore, the provisions of Section 80 are not applicable. It is further required to be noted that the amounts were subscribed from Mumbai and the amounts from time to time were paid by cheques issued from Mumbai and the bonds were received in Mumbai. Even leave under Section XII of the Letters Patent was granted by the Court which was not challenged. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the point regarding notice under Section 80 of the C.P.C. was not pressed into service before the learned single Judge and therefore, no discussion is finding place in the judgment in this behalf. 6. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties. We do not find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants. It is not in dispute that the respondents had invested the amount in the form of bond with the appellant-Corporation and on that basis it cannot be said that the claim is false. No other arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. 7. In our view, the appeal is thoroughly misconceived. It is not expected of a Corporation like the appellants to deny the just claim of another public body. After accepting the amount in the form of bond, they tried to defend the proceedings without any substance in any manner. The facts of the -5- case make it clear that there is absolutely no defence available to the appellants to defend the case. The defence taken in connection with the limitation which we have discussed hereinabove is without any substance b. In view of this, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned single Judge. Finding no merit in the Appeal the same is dismissed. The Notice of Motion is also accordingly dismissed. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. R.V. MORE, J.