SUJATA CHEMICALS Vs. PURSHOTTAMDAS NAROTAMDAS GUJJAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made of the order of the conditional leave granted by the learned Senior Civil Judge in Summary Suit No.131 of 2010 on 11.1.2012 in a suit filed by the respondent original plaintiff for the recovery of the sum of Rs.10,36,000/ being the principal amount of the loan along with interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum. The petitioner partnership firm, is the original defendant, and petitioner No.2 is the partner of the said firm, who has business relationship with the respondent. Petitioner being in a need of finance for his business, an amount of Rs.7 lakhs had been obtained as loan from the respondent on 20.6.2009.

(2.) THE cheque of Rs. 7 lakhs had been given by way of a collateral security by petitioner No.2. It is the say of the petitioner that the statement of account produced by the respondent plaintiff clearly indicates that total amount of Rs.12,42,000/ has been paid against the loan of Rs.7 lakhs by 22.9.2010 and only with an ulterior motive to harass the petitioner, cheque of Rs. 7 lakhs which was given by way of collateral security, has not been returned by the respondent and the summary suit has been wrongly filed.

(3.) ON issuance of the notice, learned advocate Mr. Kedar Binniwale appeared for the original plaintiff respondent and filed affidavitinreply inter alia urging that the order passed is in consonance with the prayers and the total amount advanced to the petitioner is more than Rs. 1 crore. On different occasions cheques were given by the petitioner towards repayment of total outstanding amount, which has been dishonoured. Various complaints under the Negotiable Instruments Act have been filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara. The list of cases along with the complaint numbers, date of filing and the amount involved have been produced at AnnexureR1. It is further the say of the respondent that though there was a direction to deposit 30% of the cheque amount within 30 days on or before 10.2.2012, on 10.2.2012 extension of time was sought for depositing 30% of the cheque amount on the ground of financial stress. The time was extended upto 24.2.2012. On that day, for challenging the order as well as for the purpose of settlement of disputes amicably with the present respondent, an application was moved by the petitioner, which was rejected by the trial Court and these aspects have not been revealed in this petition. In the rejoinder reply, learned advocate Mr. Shah emphasized that in the summary suit preferred before the trial Court, nowhere there is reference of advancement of Rs.1 crore nor has any further account furnished and the only detail which has been produced is indicative of the payment of Rs.12,42,000/ There is a further affidavit tendered by learned advocate Mr. Shah in which it is stated that the only transaction with the respondent is of Rs.7 lakhs, only and the rest of the transactions are with the partnership firm where the respondent is a managing partner. The copies of 20 complaints are indicative that the respondent is proprietor of A1 Industries and partner of Kashyap Chemicals ( partnership firm).