IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION. ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION. ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION. SUIT No.817 of 1989. SUIT No.817 of 1989. SUIT No.817 of 1989. Bank of India, a Body Corporate, constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act V of 1970, having its Head Office at Express Towers, Nariman Point, Bombay-400 021, its Bombay Metropolitan Zone Office at Phiroze Jeejebhoy Towers, Dalal Street, Bombay-400 023 and amongst others, a Branch Office at Juhu, Bombay - 400 049. ..Plaintiff. ..Plaintiff. ..Plaintiff. Versus. M/s Kushal Confectionery & Pharma Pvt. Ltd.a Company, incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Digiana Industrial Estate, Jammu (J & K) and having its office at 154/6, Mittal Towers, B-Wing, Nariman Point, Bombay - 400 021. ..Defendant. ..Defendant. ..Defendant. CORAM: V. C. DAGA, J. CORAM: V. C. DAGA, J. CORAM: V. C. DAGA, J. DATED: 21.02.2008. DATED: 21.02.2008. DATED: 21.02.2008. Mr Ajay Khaire i/b M.S. Bodhanwalla & Co.,Advocate Mr Ajay Khaire i/b M.S. Bodhanwalla & Co.,Advocate Mr Ajay Khaire i/b M.S. Bodhanwalla & Co.,Advocate for the Plaintiff. for the Plaintiff. for the Plaintiff. ( 2 ) JUDGMENT. JUDGMENT. JUDGMENT. -------- 1. This is a suit filed for recovery of the amount based on the Bills of Exchange accepted by the defendant and presented to the defendant for payment on due dates. The defendants failed and neglected to make payment of the amounts of the said Bills of Exchange and protested by a Notary Public contending that the payment has been made to the drawer "M/s Web Convertors (India) Limited. The comment made by the Notary Public Shri S.R. Wakil dated 13.4.1987 has been filed on record which has presumptive value. 2. The defendant though appeared and filed written statement but thereafter did not appear to contest the suit inspite of notice served on it by Registered A.D. Acknowledgement of which is placed on record alongwith affidavit of service by the plaintiff. 3. In the above view of the matter, the defendant has neither challenged documents or the statements made on oath on behalf of the ( 3 ) plaintiff. The defendant has not proved that the suit is not maintainable against it. The defendant has also failed to prove that Bills of Exchange are forged and/or fabricated documents. Defence taken by the defendant is untenable in view of the statement made by the defendant before the Notary Public that the amounts have been paid to the drawer. Had the Bills of Exchange been forged and fabricated, the defendant would not have paid amounts. Therefore, none of the issues of which burden lie on the defendants have been proved. 4. The plaintiff by filing affidavit and making statement on oath supported by the original documents, has proved its claim. Since the defendant chose to remain absent the statement made in the affidavit and the documents filed on record went unchallenged. 5. In the above view of the matter, the plaintiff has proved and established their claim and is entitled to decree as prayed. 6. In the result, the suit is liable to be decreed. Hence, the following order: ( 4 ) ORDER ORDER ORDER ----- (i) The suit is decreed in terms of the prayer clause incorporated in the plaint. (ii) The defendant do pay to the plaintiff Rs.1,54,357.03 ps. with interest thereon from the date of the suit on the aggregate principal sum of Rs. 1,34,747.29 ps. at the rate of 6% per annum till realization of decretal amount in full and final with costs. (iii) Decree be drawn in terms of this order. JUDGE. JUDGE. JUDGE.