Disposed

Good Value Financial Services Pvt.Ltd. v. Faithfull Developers

Bombay HC16 Jun 2022SJ/14/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Summons for Judgment suit regarding a confirmed loan of Rs. 45 crores, the Court refused unconditional leave to proceed ex parte due to a dispute on interest. Instead, it conditioned grant of leave on the defendant depositing the entire principal sum within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Leave to apply to cease and desist payment conditional upon depos of whole principal amount of Rs. 45,49,67,731/- within eight weeks from the date.

Good Value Financial Services Pvt.Ltd. Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 14 OF 2020

¶4

¶5

COMMERCIAL SUMMARY SUIT NO. 973 OF 2019

¶6

Good Value Financial … Plaintiff

¶7

Services Pvt. Ltd.

¶8

vs.

¶9

Faithfull Developers … Defendant

¶10

Ms. Sheeja John a/w. Ms. Radhika Nair i/b. M/s. M. P. Savla & Co. for the Plaintiff.

¶11

Mr. Paras S. Gosar i/b. Mr. Jayesh R. Vyas for the Defendant.

¶12

CORAM : A. K. MENON, J. DATED : 16th JUNE, 2022

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

At the outset learned counsel for the plaintiff i/b. M.P. Savla & Co. undertakes to enter appearance by 20th June, 2022.

¶15

The plaintiff seeks a decree in a sum of Rs. 45,49,67,730/- towards

¶16

repayment of loan advanced in a total sum of Rs. 7,08,00,000/-. The defendant is a partnership firm which has confirmed balance due and payable from time to time. It is stated that several part payments have been made for which credit has been given. On behalf of the plaintiff my attention

¶17

is invited to the particulars of claim totaling Rs. 46,21,47,495/-. in addition 16-SJ-14-2020-COMSS-973-2019.odt 1/3 rrpillai

¶18

Digitally signed by RAJESHWARI RAJESHWARI RAMESH RAMESH PILLAI PILLAI Date: 2022.06.18 11:14:42 +0530

¶19

to interest @ 18% per annum. I am not able to find any agreement between the parties to pay interest @ 18% per annum and the confirmation of account does not disclose 18% per annum much less interest on compounded basis which the plaintiff has claimed.

¶20

However the confirmation of account placed on record indicates that regularly year on year, the defendant has confirmed the balance due at the end of each financial year. It is seen in Exhibit Z dated 1 st April, 2019 balance amount due from defendant to the plaintiff as per statement of account of the plaintiff in the defendant’s ledger from 1 st April, 2018 to 31st March, 2019 is a closing balance of Rs. 45,49,67,731/-. The entry in the debit column confirms this.

¶21

There is an affidavit in reply to the Summons for Judgment of Mr. Rubin S. Desai partner of the firm who has contended that the suit is not maintainable. There are disputes pending inter se between the partners. An arbitration is pending. Sole Arbitrator has been appointed. In these circumstances it is contended that unconditional leave be granted. There is absolutely no defence to the claim except to state that there is no agreement to pay interest @ 18 %.

¶22

In my view there is no reason whatsoever to grant leave except on condition of deposit of the entire principal sum since the affidavit in reply discloses no defence at all. There is an admission of liability confirmed of

¶23

16-SJ-14-2020-COMSS-973-2019.odt 2/3 rrpillai

¶24

the amount which is not disputed and accordingly the defendant must be put

¶25

to terms. I therefore pass the following order :

¶26

(i) Defendant shall deposit a sum of Rs. 45,49,67,731/- within a period of eight weeks from today.

¶27

(ii) If the deposit is made the amount shall be invested in a fixed deposit by the Prothonotary and Senior Master initially for a period of one year to be renewed every year pending disposal of the suit.

¶28

(iii) If the amount is deposited the defendant shall file written statement within a further period of four weeks of such deposit.

¶29

(iv) If the deposit is not made liberty to apply to the plaintiff for a decree along with certificate of non deposit.

¶30

(v) This order will be uploaded only after appearance is filed.

¶31

(A. K. MENON, J.)

¶32

16-SJ-14-2020-COMSS-973-2019.odt 3/3 rrpillai

Good Value Financial Services Pvt.Ltd. v. Faithfull Developers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Good Value Financial Services Pvt.Ltd. v. Faithfull Developers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Maharashtra through the Collector Mumbai Suburban District Bandra East Vs Adarsh Water Parks and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and 6 Ors(Def) and Union of India and 4 Ors. (Res)

Ifci Factors Ltd. through Pushp Raj Patel Vs Raj Oil Mills Ltd. and Another

Apex Construction Vs Adarsh Water Parks and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

The Custodian Vs Rep With Reg to Verification of Computation of Interest by Jain Chowdhary and Co.

The Custodian Vs Rep in Civil Appeal No 8396-14 Shrenik Shah v/S the Custodian

Siem Offshore Rederi as Vs Altus Uber Imo No. 9385300