Plaintiff defeated on summary suit for dishonoured Bill of Exchange. Defendants failed to appear or dispute claim after proper service. Court decreed claim and allowed refund of court fees.
Decree granted as prayed for the plaintiff with refund of court fees and computation of advocate costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
((-1-))
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
SUMMARY SUIT NO.1087 OF 2005
M/s.Otarmal Kantilal & Co. Plaintiff
versus
B.G.Parmar and another Defendants
Mr.N.H.Nikumbh i/by Tushar Goradia & Co. for
plaintiff.
None for defendants.
CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.
DATE : 18th July 2005
PC :
1. Mr.Nikumbh appearing for plaintiff tenders an
affidavit proving service of writ of summons.
Same is taken on record and marked "X" for
identification. He tenders original documents
along with list. Same is taken on record and
marked "X-1" for identification.
2. Claim in the suit is arising out of a Bill of
Exchange which is at Exhibit-A, dated 1st May
2002. The same is drawn by first defendant on
the second defendant who has accepted it. The
((-2-))
address of the second defendant as well as first
defendant is set out in the Bill of Exchange.
The Bill of Exchange was presented on 1st June
2002 to second defendant but it was dishonoured.
The dishonour was notified to the first defendant
by the plaintiff and even the first defendant has
failed to comply with the demand and/or
requisition of the plaintiff. The suit is,
therefore, on a negotiable instrument and the
plaintiff claims interest thereon at the
statutory rate.
3. The writ of summons was served after the suit
was instituted on 7th February 2005. Suit is
maintainable as a summary suit. Claim is within
limitation. The first defendant has not filed
appearance though writ of summons was duly
served. The same is not disputed evenw by the
second defendant. He has duly received the
notice of demand and also the duplicate writ of
summons. The affidavit filed proving service
shows that the duplicate copy has been served on
the second defendant who accepted the same and
acknowledged receipt thereof. I have verified
address from the cause of title as well as from
the affidavit of the bailiff. Thus, even second
defendant has not disputed the claim.
((-3-))
4. In the circumstances, there will be a decree
as prayed. Refund of court fees as well as
computation of advocates costs as per rules.
(S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
S.C.Dharmadikari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court