Bombay High Court
Mehul Jadavaji Shah vs Vimal Art (India) And 2 Ors on 12 September, 2022
Bench: N. J. Jamadar
14-sj-41-2019.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
COMMERCIAL SUMMARY SUIT NO.374 OF 2019
Mehul Jadavji Shah ...Plaintiff
vs.
Vimal Art (India) and Others ...Defendants
VISHAL Mr. Abhishek Adke a/w. Ms. Vibha Joshi, for the Plaintiff
SUBHASH Mr. Yakshay Chheda, for the Defendants.
PAREKAR
Digitally signed by
VISHAL SUBHASH
CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J.
PAREKAR
Date: 2022.09.14 DATE : SEPTEMBER 12, 2022
14:20:51 +0530
P.C.:
1. The suit is listed for ex-parte decree.
2. This suit is for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,22,23,900/-
along with further interest @ 18% p.a. from 16 th October, 2018 till
payment and/or realization.
3. The plaintiff claimed to have advanced a loan of Rs. 1 Crore to
the defendants vide cheque dated 11th February, 2008. Towards the
repayment of the said amount, the defendants had allegedly drawn
a cheque for a sum of Rs. 1,17,30,005/- on Canara Bank, Mulund (w)
Branch. The cheque was returned un-encashed on account of
insufficiency of funds. Thus, Summary Suit came to be instituted
under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 based on
the negotiable instrument as well as balance confirmation.
Vishal Parekar, P.A. ...1
14-sj-41-2019.doc
4. The defendants sought unconditional leave to defend the suit.
By an order dated 7th June, 2022, this Court was persuaded to
grant leave to defend on the condition of deposit of sum of Rs.
1,22,23,900/-. Upon deposit, the defendants were permitted to file
written statement within a period of two weeks of the said deposit.
In the event of non deposit, liberty was granted to the plaintiff to
apply for a decree on obtaining a Non Deposit Certificate.
5. The plaintiff has moved the Court armed with a Non-Deposit
Certificate issued by the Prothonotary dated 12th August, 2022.
6. The learned counsel for the defendants submitted that the
defendants have neither deposited the amount nor any appeal is
preferred against the aforesaid order granting conditional leave to
defend the suit. Further, the learned counsel for the defendants
fairly submitted that the defendants did not challenge the existence
or genuineness of the documents on which the suit is based.
7. In view of the provisions contained in Sub Rule (6) of Rule 3
of Order XXXVII of the Code, upon failure of the defendants to
comply with the condition, subject to which leave is granted, the
Vishal Parekar, P.A. ...2
14-sj-41-2019.doc
plaintiff forthwith becomes entitled to a judgment.
Thus, the following order.
ORDER
1] The suit stands decreed.
2] The defendants do pay an amount of Rs. 1,22,23,900/- to the
plaintiff along with further interest @ 18% p.a. on the principal
amount of Rs. 1 Crore from the date of institution of the suit till
payment and/or realization.
2] The defendants do pay the costs of the suit to the plaintiff.
3] The plaintiff is entitled to refund of Court frees, if any, in
accordance with rules.
4] Decree be drawn and sealed expeditiously.
(N. J. JAMADAR, J.)
Vishal Parekar, P.A. ...3
