Parag Jyotindra Gandhi vs Jayant Narendra Mehta And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 5330 Bom

                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                             ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                                            SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 90 OF 2017

                                                                IN

                                           COMMERCIAL SUMMARY SUIT NO. 385 OF 2016


                        IFCI Factors Ltd.                                        ...      Plaintiff
                                     vs.
                        Glodyne Ventures and Holding                             ...      Defendants
                        Private Limited through
                        Official Liquidator High Court, Bombay


                        Ms. Anubha Rastogi for the Plaintiff.
                        Mr. Jehangir Jejeebhoy for the Official Liquidator of Defendant no. 1.
                        Mr. Siddha Pamecha i/b. Mr. Thakore Jariwala for Defendant nos. 2 and 3.


                                                                 CORAM : A. K. MENON, J.

DATED : 8th JUNE, 2022 P.C. :

1. By an order dated 21st August, 2018 Summons for Judgment No. 90 of

2017 was disposed. Conditional leave was granted to defendant nos. 2 and 3

to deposit a sum of Rs. 9 crores within six weeks of that order. The deposit

was to be made jointly and/or severally by defendant nos. 2 and 3. It is now

seen that the deposit has not been made. The plaintiff has obtained a

certificate of non deposit dated 9 th April, 2021. Today the learned counsel for

Digitally signed by the applicant seeks a decree in terms of the suit.

           RAJESHWARI
RAJESHWARI RAMESH
RAMESH     PILLAI
PILLAI     Date:
           2022.06.13
           14:03:00
           +0530        22-SJ-90-2017-COMSS-385-2014.odt                                             1/3
                        rrpillai

2. On behalf of defendant nos. 2 and 3 the learned counsel states that

appeal has been filed against an order of 2018 however it is evident there is

no stay of proceedings since the Appeal is said to have been dismissed for

default. Accordingly suit is taken up for disposal .

3. The Suit claims a sum of Rs.25,57,21,139/- along with interest thereon

on the basis of a Corporate Loan Agreement dated 24 th December, 2010. The

cause of action is stated to have arisen on 24 th December, 2010 upon

execution of the agreement and thereafter a Joint Memorandum of

Understanding was entered between parties on 28 th August, 2012. Part

payments have been made and the last loan payment made by defendants to

the plaintiffs on 10th January, 2013 .

4. Furthermore it is stated that the plaintiff issued a notice of demand

dated 6th May, 2015. As a result of non-payment, the plaintiff invoked the

guarantee. issued by defendant nos. 2 and 3. The guarantors have failed and

neglected to honour their obligations under the guarantee. Today the plaintiff

has placed on record the original of corporate loan agreement, undertaking,

promissory note signed by the defendant no. 1 and deed of guarantee signed

by both defendant nos. 2 and 3. In view of the failure to deposit the amounts

the plaintiff is now entitled to a decree.

22-SJ-90-2017-COMSS-385-2014.odt 2/3 rrpillai

5. Accordingly I pass the following order :

(i) Suit is decreed in terms of prayer clause (a) along with interest in

terms of prayer clause (a) except that the rate of interest payable from the

date of the suit to payment of realisation shall be computed at 6% from date

of suit.

(ii) Defendant nos. 2 and 3 shall also pay costs of the suit

(iii) Suit is disposed in the above terms.

(iv)       Refund, if any, as per rules.



                                                                     (A. K. MENON, J.)




22-SJ-90-2017-COMSS-385-2014.odt                                                 3/3
rrpillai