Bombay High Court
Vodafone Essar Ltd vs Raju Sud Ig on 22 November, 2011
Bench: Anoop V.Mohta
1 sj-303-10.sxw
dgm
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 303 OF 2010
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO. 3264 OF 2009
Vodafone Essar Ltd. .... Plaintiffs
vs
Raju Sud ig .... Defendant
Mr. Punit B. Anand for the Plaintiffs.
Ms. Mamta Saad along with Ms.R.A. Kesri i/by M/s.Banatwala & Co.
for the Defendant.
CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON : September 23, 2011
PRONOUNCED ON : November 22, 2011
JUDGMENT:
The Plaintiffs who is service provider has filed this Summary
Suit by invoking Order XXXVII of the Civil Procedure Code (for short,
CPC) based upon computer generated itemized mobile bills.
THE RELEVANT BACKGROUND AND POLICY OF COMPUTER
GENERATED ITEMISED BILLS:
2 sj-303-10.sxw
2 The Plaintiffs are engaged in the business of providing Mobile
Telephone Services under a Licence Agreement dated 29-11-1994,
issued by the Government of India (as amended from time to time),
under the terms and conditions set out thereon. Under the provisions
of the Indian Telegraphs Rules 1951, and more particularly Rule 439
thereof, the charges for usage become payable on presentation of a
bill. It is necessary for the service provider that the billing system of
the licensees should generate the billing information, in adequate
details, to ensure satisfaction to the customer about the genuineness
of the bill. The bill represents the true extent of the service actually
provided by the service provider and also the details about the service
conditions, which are available to the subscribers. Some of the
purposes of issuing or obtaining the telephone/mobile bills through
hard copy, inter-alia, are to (a) understand and satisfy oneself about
the genuineness of the bill; (b) facilitate making of payment; (c) verify
the charges incurred by the consumer and (d) monitor usage or
expenditure by consumer.
TRAI DIRECTIVES HAVE BINDING FORCE
3 The directions of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (for
3 sj-303-10.sxw
short, "TRAI") issued issued from time to time with regard to the
generation of bills have binding force. TRAI issued a Direction vide
No. 303-4/2007-QoS, dated the 4th May, 2007 specifying various
guidelines as to how the bill should be presented to the consumers
and that bill must contain certain useful information to the consumers
in addition to the amount of the bill. TRAI has noted that the service
providers of other sectors such as Electricity Corporations, Water
Utilities services, and Financial Institutions etc., are are not charging
any amount for providing the hard copy of the bill. TRAI after
careful consideration of the provisions relating to billing in the Indian
Telegraph Rules, 1951, License Agreements for Cellular Unified
Access, NLD and ILD licenses directed the service providers to provide
hard copy of the bill to its post-paid subscribers free of cost. However,
if any customer opts for receipts of the bill through e-mail, instead of
hard copy, the service providers can supply the same after obtaining
explicit consent from the consumers. In all other cases, the service
provider must ensure that the bills are generated and delivered to the
consumers in printed form free of cost.
4 The amendment to the principal Tariff Order by the
Telecommunication Tariff (Forty-sixth Amendment) Order, 2008
4 sj-303-10.sxw
incorporates the decision of the Authority that the telecom customers
must get the bill in a printed paper form without any extra charge
from them. Thus, in compliance thereof, the Plaintiffs generate a bill
in a printed paper form and that TRAI by its letter dated 23-06-2011,
addressed to all service providers whilst inviting attention to
Telecommunication Tariff (Forty-sixth Amendment) Order, 2008, and
more particularly para 13 once again directed that bills should be
given through e-mail only to the customers who have explicitly opted
to receive the bills electronically and in all other cases printed bills
should be generated and delivered to the customers in printed form
free of cost.
The binding conditions between the service provider & the
user/customer.
5 The Plaintiffs submits that the Defendant having declared that
he has read and understood the terms and conditions provided
overleaf to the Customer Application Form, under clause 4 thereof, the
Defendant expressed agreed (a) to make payments for the services on
the following basis :-
(A) Payment will be due when HMTL raises the billing statement on
the customer;
(i) payment will be made on or before the due date mentioned in
5 sj-303-10.sxw
the billing statement, failing which HMTL shall be entitled to
charge interest of 18% per annum and/or late fees on all
outstanding charges from the due date till the date of payment
and shall be entitled to discontinue the services without notice,
in its sole discretion;
(ii).....
(iii).......
(iv)the Customer shall be liable for all charges for the services
provided to the Customer whether or not the services have been
used by the customer;
(v)In the event of any dispute regarding the charges; the customer
agreers to pay HMTL the charges billed pending resolution of
such dispute;
(vi)The customer shall be liable to pay for the services provided
even if he does not receive the bills. It will be the customer's
responsibility to make enquiries in case of non-receipt of bills.
The declared procedure to redress grievance with regard to the
bills.
(B) The reverse of the Plaintiffs' bill, it is specifically provided that
the subscriber should ensure receipt of the complaint docket number
6 sj-303-10.sxw
(unique complaint number) which the subscriber needs for all future
communication and that the Plaintiffs need at least 4 weeks for
settling billing complaints. 3 days for disruption/disconnection of
service complaints and 7 days for any other complaints. Further, that
if the subscriber is not too happy with the plaintiffs' responses within
these timeliness, the subscriber can contact the Plaintiffs' Nodal
Officer with the docket number, anytime from Monday to Friday (9.30
am to 6.00 pm).
Name : Sujit Suvarna
Phone: 9619215000 Extn: 5032
Further, if the subscriber is still not pleased with Nodal Officer's
response, the subscriber can make a further appeal with the Plaintiffs'
Appellate Authority with the docket number, anytime from Monday to
Friday (9.30 am to 6.00 pm), for a quick solution.
Name : Laxmi Bhan
Phone: 9619215000 Extn: 5032
Email: [email protected]
(C) Admittedly if at all the alleged dispute was genuine, the
Defendant who is a subscriber of the Plaintiffs not only in respect of
the said mobile number in respect of which there is a default in
payment of bill at Exhibit "D" to the Plaint, but is also a subscriber of 9
other connections of the Plaintiffs, the Defendant would have
7 sj-303-10.sxw
immediately followed the procedure and manner set down in the
reverse of the bill. That, however, the Defendant chose to keep silent
from the date of the bill i.e. 07-02-2009 and subsequent letter of the
Plaintiffs dated 04-03-2009 Exhibit "E" to the Plaint.
(D) After receipt of the Plaintiffs' Advocate's letter dated 05-05-2009
i.e Exhibit "F" to the Plaint, the Defendant by his Advocate's letter
dated 29-05-2009 i.e. Exhibit "G" to the plaint, for the first time
allegedly raised a dispute that too without substantiating and without
giving any better and material particulars;
(E) It is pertinent to note that the dispute allegedly raised by the
Defendant is on a primary ground of not disconnecting the services
from the date of his request i.e 15-01-2009, without disputing the levy
of charges in the bill dated 07-06-2009 which are only for the period
upto 14-01-2009.
(F) Admittedly the Plaintiffs have not claimed for any amount after
14-01-2009 and except for bare and bald denials in the Affidavit in
reply, at paras 2, 4(f) and 7, the Defendant has not given any material
and better particulars.
(G) Though in para 9 of his affidavit in reply, the Defendant has
alleged that the plaintiffs did not apprise him as a customer of the
8 sj-303-10.sxw
roaming charges though he was a customer having 10 connections, it
is pertinent to note that in respect of the other connections and more
specifically connection under mobile no. 9820507070, the Defendant
has been paying roaming charges @ Rs. 5:50 per kb for GPRS usage.
The Plaintiffs refer and rely upon bills of the said mobile number
being extensively used by the Defendant for international roaming and
GPRS.
(H) It is pertinent to note that in para 10 of his affidavit in reply, the
Defendant has admitted that he is willing to pay the amount which is
due and payable by him after the said bills are scrutinized and
dissected by him and the plaintiffs' representative which admittedly is
a clear admission of having used the GPRS facility upto 14-01-2009.
This itself speaks volumes of the Defendant's conduct.
THE PLAINTIFFS SUBMISSIONS:
6 The Plaintiffs at the outset submit that :
(i) apart from basic telephony services and in compliance with the
aforesaid licences, the Plaintiffs offer various value added
services including General Packet Radio Services (GPRS) to their
subscribers;
(ii)General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) is a non voice value added
9 sj-303-10.sxw
service that allows date to be sent and received across a mobile
telephone network globally;
(iii)thus, any service that is used over the fixed Internet today -
File Transfer Protocol (FTP), web browsing, chat, email, et. Is
also available over the Plaintiffs' mobile network because of
GPRS;
(iv)thus, the basic function of GPRS is to make the Internet fully
available to mobile users and in the instant case to the Plaintiffs'
subscribers and the Plaintiffs' subscribers on subscription can
access any we page or any other Internet applications provided
the subscribers are using GPRS compatible mobile handsets with
required features;
(v)in or about January 2009, the Defendant requested the Plaintiffs
to activate International Roaming and GPRS service n respect of
the said Cellular Mobile No. 9833937002. On such a request
being made by the Defendant as subscriber, on 05-01-2009, the
same was activated by the Plaintiffs;
(vi)the terms of usage in terms of International Roaming and GPRS
service are set out on the Plaintiffs' website.
(vii)It is specifically mentioned on the website that as per the
GSMA Regulation on GPRS usage, the Plaintiffs as service
10 sj-303-10.sxw
providers cannot provide the GPRS usage in terms of websites
served by the subscriber.
(viii)The said website also specifies that the charges for GPRS/Data
usages are calculated in terms of the volume of data sent or
received and the usage charges are for the relevant period at a
fixed rate of Rs.5.50 per 10KB while in International Roaming
and also that the subscribers local plan for GPRS are not valid
overseas and all data usages are charged at the visited operator
rates.
(ix)The Defendant was visiting UAE and whilst in UAE, the said
Defendant extensively used the GPRS on International Roaming
from 05-01-2009 to 14-01-2009.
(x)the charges are levied on the total of sent and received data and
that in all instances of high value GPRS sessions, the received
data are exceptionally higher than the sent data, indicating that
the subscriber has done down loads of higher volumes.
(xi)As and when the roaming partners informed the Petitioners
about the usage of a subscriber whilst on roaming, the Plaintiffs
immediately informed their subscriber including the said
Defendant abut the usage.
(xii)After informing the Defendant about the high usage, the
11 sj-303-10.sxw
Plaintiffs received on 15-01-2009 requesting deactivation of
international roaming which was immediately done. That
therefore, as is evident from the bill at Exhibit "D" of the plaint,
the international GPRS are only for the period 05-01-2009 to
14-01-2009 and that pursuant to the services used by the
Defendant, the Plaintiffs in their regular course of business in
compliance with the TRAI directive generated and delivered bill
printed to the Defendant i.e Exhibit "D" to the plaint.
(xiii)Dynamic credit limit is pre-determined value depending on
past payment history, usage etc. till which a subscriber can avail
of cellular services without making interim payment during one
bill cycle;
(xiv)reputed clients like the Defendant enjoy special privilege of
uninterrupted services beyond Credit Limited without making
interim payments;
(xv) the subscribers who are on international roaming are
intimated about their usage based on the data received from the
roaming partners;
(xvi)as the Defendant was continuously using the said GPRS
facilities while roaming internatinally, the Defendant was
informed on receipt of the data from roaming partners, about
12 sj-303-10.sxw
the high usage;
(xvii)the itemized bill contains all the available information
provided by roaming partners pertaining to date, time, roaming
partner, volume and the usage charges;
(xviii)the bill Exhibit "D" to the plaint has been delivered to the
Defendant and the same has been received and duly
acknowledged.
7 With the above background, the summary suit is filed on
25.11.2009. Writ of summonses were served as per the Sheriff's office
endorsement on 8.2.2010. Affidavit of service of special bailiff with
regard to service is dated 31.03.2010. The service report is dated
17.04.2010. The defendant filed appearance on 18.02.2010. The
summons for judgment is dated 30.07.2010. The defendant's reply to
the same is dated 17.09.2010. The matter was adjourned on
22.07.2010 for settlement. On 20.08.2011 after hearing the Court has
directed the Plaintiff to file affidavit in support of electronic
documents/records. The matter could not be settled and ultimately
heard on 23.09.2011. The Plaintiffs have filed compilation of
documents basically copy of Telecommunication Tariff (Forty-Sixth
Amendment) Order, 2008 and a copy of letter addressed by Telecom
13 sj-303-10.sxw
Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to all service providers.
Thereafter the matter was closed for orders. The matter was listed
again on 7.10.2011 for direction as the Plaintiffs have filed affidavit
dated 27.09.2011 providing the details of the TRAI Rules, Regulations
and connected agreement between the parties. The copy was served
to other side apart from affidavit/rejoinder. On 7.10.2011 the
matter was thereafter closed for orders as Defendant chooses not to
file any further affidavit.
THE DEFENDANTS SUBMISSIONS:
8 The Defendant resisted the summons for judgment and the
averments in the plaint as well as supporting affidavit to the summons
for judgment on various grounds basically contending that the
plaintiff's demand of exorbitant bill without disconnecting the services
though asked for and by suppressing and misrepresenting the facts
and therefore the summons for judgment is liable to be dismissed.
He further contended that the Defendant was reputed customer of
plaintiff for more than 9 years and they have more than ten mobile
connections of the Plaintiffs. There is no denial to the fact that the
Defendant applied for roaming on 5.01.2009 and was issued a
dynamic credit limit of Rs. 1 lac. The Defendant directed his
14 sj-303-10.sxw
representative Mr. Amol to request for disconnection from the second
week of January itself. The charges were crossed Rs.50,000/-. The
Plaintiff as not taken note of the representative's request and insisted
the subscriber to come forward for disconnection. Therefore on
15.01.2009 sent an SMS from mobile to disconnect connection
provided on the number. However, it is alleged that the Plaintiff did
not disconnect the same despite SMS. The services were continued
for full 25 days and ultimately disconnected on 9.02.2009. The
itemised bills are upto this period only.
THE REASONS :
9 Admittedly, the itemized bill is for the period from 7 January
2009 to 6 February, 2009. There is no dispute with regard to the
Customer Agreement/ the contract between the parties. However, the
defence so raised that it was in fine print and therefore, unable to read
the same at the time of signing of the same. Another defence was
raised that the flat rate of Rs.5.50 per 10KB was charged without
knowledge. Therefore, challenge was raised to the usage charges plus
services taxes as demanded through the advocate letter dated 29 May
2009. The challenge was also raised to the sweeping powers provided
15 sj-303-10.sxw
under the agreement. The personal meetings could not settle the
matter.
10 The Plaintiffs reiterated their averments and the case in the
rejoinder again, and basically contended that there was no triable
issues involved in the matter and the Defendant has raised false and
bogus defence that intention to wriggle out of his liability.
11 There is no serious dispute with regard to the printed bill on a
monthly basis which were in compliance with a TRAI directives. The
Defendant is bound by the agreement as well as the terms and
conditions including tariff rates so fixed and agreed. The subscriber if
fail to make the payment within prescribed period and/or failed to
raise any objection to the bill, he automatically gets tagged as a
defaulter. There is no denial to the facts that the Defendant applying
for roaming services from 5 January 2009. The roaming charges are
due for the usage done by the Defendant for the GPRS in KB while on
international roaming for a specific period of 5 January 2009 to 14
January 2009. The Plaintiff after receipt of the SMS discontinued the
16 sj-303-10.sxw
international roaming subscription and therefore charged
international GPRS usage in the bill only upto 14 January 2009.
There is no dispute that the Defendant was in UAE during this period.
Mobile service was not discontinued as discontinuation request was
for only international facility.
12 There is no dispute that its a commercial transaction. Having
utilized and used the services based upon the agreement will
announced flat rates as per the tariff plan for international use of
GPRS services. The denial to the terms and conditions by alleging it
to be in fine print in the facts and circumstances are not bonafide.
The bill annexed to the plant has itemized billing details. There was
no objection as provided was raised except advocates reply dated 29
May 2009.
13 I am not inclined to accept the objection/ defence so raised by
the Defendants with regard to the itemized bill as issued based upon
the actual usage, the details which are provided only on the ground
that the rates were not announced or specifically agreed and that the
Defendant has signed the document/ agreement and even using the
services since long, now to say that he was not aware of the conditions
17 sj-303-10.sxw
and tariff rates of international roaming charges is also unacceptable.
Mere allegation of fraud and/or wrong itemized bill is not sufficient.
THE PERMISSIBLOE COMPUTERISED ITEMISED BILLS-
SECONDARY EVIDENCE :
14 It is relevant to note that the service provider like the Plaintiffs
are bound to follow the Telecommunication Tariff (Forty Sixty
Amendment) Order, 2008 dated 24 January 2008 and as amended
from time to time and of other regular orders, directions and policies
of TRAI. It is permissible for the service provider to provide hard copy
of the bill to its post paid subscriber free of costs. If opted the bills
through e-mails, may be served after obtaining consent from the
consumer. It is necessary for the service provider that the bills are
generated and delivered to the consumers in printed form free of
costs.
15 There is no dispute that the subscriber has right to note and
verify the charges levied by the service provider and if case is made
out the service provider is bound to correct even the itemized bills.
The bill in question provides all useful information in addition to the
18 sj-303-10.sxw
amount of bill. The customer must get satisfied about the genuineness
of the bill by verifying the charges claimed/raised. A purpose of this
itemized bill is to facilitate the proper and correct payment.
16 As per the agreement and in view of Rule 439 of the Indian
Telegraph Rules, 1951 the charges for calls in message rate and
measured rate shall become payable on presentation of bill. The
licence agreements for Cellular Mobile Telephone Service (CMTS),
Unified Access Service, National Long Distance (NLD) and
International Long Distance (ILD) services relating to billing and the
customer service are part of Indian Telegraph Rules which are under
control and ambit of TRAI.
17 The Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short, "IT Act") has
recognised the transactions carried out by means of electronic data,
interchange and other means of electronic communication, commonly
referred to as "electronic commerce". The computer is nothing but a
new communication system to create, transmit, store information in
the electronic form instead of traditional paper documents. The law
of evidence is based upon actual/hard copies and/or paper
documents/records and oral testimony. Section 2(i), (j), (k), (l), (o),
19 sj-303-10.sxw
(t) deals with the concept of "computer", "computer network",
"computer resource", "computer system", "data", "electronic record".
The meaning of "computer system", "data" and "electronic record" is
as under :
2(l) "computer system" means a device or collection of
device, including input and output support devices and
excluding calculators which are not programmable and
capable of being used in conjunction with external files,
which contain computer programmes, electronic
instructions, input data and output data, that performs
logic, arithmetic, data storage and retrieval,
communication control and other functions.
2(o) "data" means a representation of information,
knowledge, facts, concepts or instructions which are being
prepared or have been prepared in a formalised manner,
and is intended to be processed, is being processed or has
been processed in a computer system or computer
network, and may be in any form (including computer
printouts magnetic or optical storage media, punched
cards, punched tapes) or stored internally in the memory
of the computer.
2(t) "electronic record" means data, record or data
generated, image or sound stored, received or sent in an
electronic form or micro film or computer generated micro
fiche.
18 Section 65-A of Evidence Act contemplates that the contents of
electronic record may be proved in accordance with the provisions of
Section 65-B of the Evidence Act.
20 sj-303-10.sxw
19 In the Courts and/or Tribunal, at present, substantial filing of
Petitions/Appeals are through print-media and paper. The other
modes are also available as contemplated under IT Act. The
computerised generated printouts is also permissible mode to place on
record relevant data to prove the contents of electronic record.
The Apex Court in State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Navjot Sandhu,1
has recognised and permitted to rely on "copies made from the
original by mechanical processes which in themselves insure the
accuracy of the coy, and copies compared with such copies".
Considering Sections 65 and 65 of the Evidence Act, it is also observed
that secondary evidence of the contents of a document if the oiginal is
impracticable to move and produce easily. Therefore printouts taken
from the computer/server by mechanical process as contemplated
under Sections 65 and 65 of the Evidence Act is permitted,
irrespective of the compliance with the requirement of Section 65-B of
the Act.
ITEMISED COMPUTER GENERATED BILLS ARE PRESUMED TO BE
1 (2005) 11 SCC 600
21 sj-303-10.sxw
VALID AND RELIABLE.
21 The itemized computer generated hard copy is nothing but a
human/readable averment of electronic document or data. The
validity of computer record has to be decided from various angels and
processing at every stage. The human interference or manual feeding
or input of data just cannot be overlooked. The computer is nothing
but a creation of human intellectual. The computer programme that
generates the record/document without further manual or human
interference like mathematical calculations, like processing itemized
bill. Unless specifically challenged and disputed, the documents so
generated just cannot be overlooked, and need to be treated as correct
and genuine and unless proved contrary by bringing material on
record. "The computer" of the Plaintiff cannot be stated to be a
"Personal Computer", as, the use of mobile services, national or
international, have been recorded automatically at various stages.
The printouts are nothing but hard copy from the Manstream
computer, based upon the data. There is no challenge to the Plaintiff's
computer system. It is well recognized and convenient mode of
recording data and the material for further mathematical calculation
based upon the agreed terms and tariff plan. There is no further
22 sj-303-10.sxw
material or evidence and/or even averments to challenge such
permissible recording mode of service based upon the actual use by
the Defendant. The vague challenge is only of tariff rate. In the
present case, in view of the binding agreement and the conditions, the
defence of no knowledge of rate is apparently afterthought, sham,
bogus and unacceptable.
I am inclined to observe that itemized bills/ printouts are
authenticated documents and reliable to accept the case of the
Plaintiff with regard to the usage of Mobile services by the Plaintiff
and the mathematical calculation of the charges so derived at, based
upon the agreed tariff plan, as per the binding contract. This falls
within the concept of the acknowledgment or receipt of liability and
data. The Summary Suit as filed, therefore, maintainable and so also
the Summons for Judgment.
23 The computer is invention of human being. The risk and danger
of such system cannot be denied. The possibility of defaults in
softwares and hardwares is always there. So also because of in
carrying out resources apart from manual possible interference in the
computer system and data like other system the computer is also
23 sj-303-10.sxw
suffers because of internal as well as outer problems and vireses. I am
inclined to observe that the computer evidence is not infallible. If the
case is made out of manipulation, interpolation and corruption in
reproduction and if the party able to show the computer defaults or
failures in any part of technical or organizational characters and of
related aspect of any stage from the manual feeding upto the
production of physical record or document and even the defaults and
mistakes in mathematical and calculation, then it needs to be decided
taking into consideration its cumulative effect on ultimate printouts/
documents from such computer.
24 In the present case, there is no challenge to the Plaintiff's
computer equipment, programme, government policies, procedure for
use of the equipment, data based and reproduction of its hard copy
through printout bills.
25 The aspect of TRAI rules and regulations on such service
provider and the governing law also a relevant factor to accept the
case of the Plaintiff. There is nothing on record to challenge that the
Plaintiff has used unstandard equipment and entries or the input
though to some extent and/or some stage human related, was not in
24 sj-303-10.sxw
the regular course of business. There is nothing to show that such
printout or procedure is impermissible as wrong method or
mechanism have been used to generate printouts or itemized bills.
Mere allegations of challenge to the authenticity and the calculation
for want of knowledge about the direct plan is not sufficient to treat
untrustworthy and unreliable. There is no challenge to the
authenticity, integrity and reliability of the modes, stature, control and
proceedings of the form of transmission of the data.
26 There is no serious dispute with regard to the itemized bill and
the way and the procedure by which it is generated, as it is within the
purview and ambit and as per the provisions of law and directions of
TRAI. As per the agreement, the Defendant is bound to pay for
services rendered by the Plaintiff on billing statement as raised. The
Suit so filed therefore, is based upon the contract between the parties.
Itemized bill therefore, in my view need to be considered as
acceptance of liability and/or acknowledgment of the amount due and
payable as elaborated in the Full Bench Judgment of this Court
2 .
Jyotsna K. Valia Vs. T.S. Parekh & Co.
2 2007(4) Mh.L.J. 517
25 sj-303-10.sxw
27 In this matter, at this stage, we are concerned with the computer
generated bills and related documents. In view of the above
undisputed position on record, with regard to the computerised bills
and as the plaintiff has not filed supporting affidavit as required under
Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, still I am inclined to rely upon those
computerised printouts which are admissible and as permissible to
treat as supporting documents to pass and/or grant summons for
judgment as prayed, but on the following conditions :
ORDER
(i) Conditional leave is granted to the Defendants to defend the
Suit subject to deposit of a sum of Rs. 6,01,552/- within a
period of twelve weeks from today,
(ii)In the event the amount is deposited as directed above, the Suit
to stand transferred to the List of Commercial Causes.
(iii)The Defendant to file written statement within 30 days. The
affidavit of documents within six weeks thereafter. Recovery
and inspection forthwith thereafter.
(iv)If the amount is deposited as aforesaid, the Plaintiff will be
entitled to withdraw the same subject to giving an undertaking
to this Court to restitute the amount with interest at such rate as
26 sj-303-10.sxw
may be directed by this Court, in the event the Plaintiff fails in
the Suit.
(v)In the event the entire amount is not deposited within the
stipulated time, the default shall be treated as grant of summons
for judgment as prayed.
28 The Summons for Judgment is accordingly disposed of in the
above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.
(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
