Jatin Ramesh Diwan v. F.W.Team and 4 Ors

ORDER "i. Leave to defend the suit is granted to the Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 subject to deposit of a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- in the Court within a period of eight weeks from today. ii. If the aforesaid deposit is made within the stipulated period, this Suit shall be transferred to the list of Commercial Causes and the Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 shall file written statement within a period of 30 days from the date of deposit. iii. If this conditional order of deposit is not complied with within the aforesaid period, the Plaintiff shall be entitle to apply for an ex-parte decree against the Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 after obtaining Non Deposit Certificate from the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court. iv.Summons for judgment stand disposed of accordingly. v. Suit as against Defendant No. 2 stands decreed."

¶17It would also be pertinent to refer to and quote paragraphs No.15 to 17 of the order dated 1st February, 2023. "15. I have heard learned Counsel and also perused a copy of the Plaint and the Affidavit in Reply filed by Defendant Nos. 3 to 5. At the outset I must note that Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 have not denied or disputed the fact that they are the legal heirs of the deceased i.e. Hetal Hakani, partner of Defendant No. 1 Firm. There is also no dispute Hetal Hakani had in his capacity as partner of Defendant No. 1 Firm issued the first Letter of Confirmation. The Plaintiffs has placed on record sufficient material to demonstrate that in fact amounts were advanced by the Plaintiff to Defendant No.

¶1The grounds on which the Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 seek to resist the claim of the Plaintiff (a) Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 were not aware of and/or were not liable for amounts advanced to Defendant No. 1 Firm by the Plaintiffs. (b) Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 were not bound by the loan agreement since they were neither the Executor, Administrator, Assigns of Defendant No.1. (c) that no liability would devolved upon Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 in terms of the Partnership Deed. I find that these defenses are largely untenable since, Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 are sued in their capacity as legal heirs of Hetal Hakani (deceased partner of Defendant No. 1) and therefore, Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 would be liable for any amounts which the deceased Hetal Hakani would be liable for. In so far as the contentions that the defendant Nos. 3 to 5 were not liable in terms of the Partnership Deed of the said Firm. Though this was canvassed across the bar, no copy of the Partnership Deed was relied upon. Even if the Partnership Deed contains such a stipulation, the same would only be available as a defense against the other partners of the Firm and not a third party claim.

¶16Even the defense of money lending is one which is merely pleaded, the same has not been elaborated nor have any details being placed on record to demonstrate that the Plaintiffs were in the business of money lending. It is also settled that the same is largely irrelevant, since the Plaint is on the basis of Letters of Confirmation which have been executed by the deceased partner i.e. Hetal Hakani and not on the Demand Promissory Notes.

¶17Hence, even though I find that the defenses raised by Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 are highly improbable. I find that the interest of justice will be met, if the the Defendant Nos.3 to 5 are granted conditional leave to defend the Suit. I am inclined to grant this leave, also since, the Defendant Nos.3 to 5 are the legal heirs of the deceased partner, who personally not involved in the transaction in question. However, in so far as the Defendant No.2 is concerned, I find that Defendant No.2 though duly served has chosen not to appear and contest the Claim. Therefore, a decree must followed against Defendant No.2. In the circumstances the following order :-"

¶18As noted above, the leave to defend was granted to the Defendants No.3 to 5 subject to deposit of Rs.25,00,000/- in the Court within a period eight weeks and if the said order was not complied with the Plaintiff was entitled to apply for an exparte decree after obtaining Non Deposit Certificate from the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court.

¶19A perusal of the Non Deposit Certificate date 7th June, 2023 clearly indicates that the Defendants No.3 to 5 have failed to deposit the sum of Rs.25,00,000/- in the Court within the prescribed period i.e. on or before 15th March, 2023 when the period of six weeks granted by this Court ended. Mr. Kanade, has also taken this Court through the originals of the documents referred to and relied upon by the Plaintiff in the plaint. I have also perused the particulars of claim which has been marked as "X" as above. The particulars of claim contains an additional amount of interest of Rs.76,07,467/- for the period of October 21, 2021 till July 31, 2023, @ 12% on the amount of Rs.3,56,60,000/- which in my view is only fair to award.

¶20I have seen also the acknowledgment of the communication on behalf of the Plaintiff to the advocate for Defendants No.3 to 5 containing the acknowledgment of receipt. The Defendants No.3 to 5 though notified that the decree would be passed today have neither chosen to remain present nor represented.

¶21In the circumstances, the Plaintiff has become entitled to an exparte decree against the Defendants No.3 to 5.

¶22The Suit is accordingly decreed against Defendants No.3 to 5 with an additional amount of Rs.76,07,467/- from October 21, 2021 till July 31, 2023, @12% on the amount of Rs.3,56,60,000/-.

¶23Let the affidavit of service be filed within a period of one week. (ABHAY AHUJA, J)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMARY SUIT NO. 6 OF 2021 WITH SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO 18 OF 2022 WITH SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 5 OF 2022 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 6 OF 2021 Jatin Ramesh Diwan ...Plaintiff Vs. F.W.Team And Ors. ...Defendants --- Mr. Vishal Kanade (Counsel) a/w. Mr. Monil Punjabi (Counsel) & Mr. Gobinda C Mohanty (Advocate) i/b, M/s. Mohanty & Associates for Plaintiff. --- CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J. DATE : 6th SEPTEMBER, 2023 P.C. : 1. The Summary Suit had been filed for recovery of an amount of Rs. 3,56,60,000/- (principal amount) and an amount of Rs, 1,94,97,968/- as interest from 1st April, 2017 up to 21st October, 2021 on the basis of two letters of confirmation issued by the Defendant No. 1 both dated 31st March, 2017. 2. The brief facts are that the Plaintiff through common friends and relatives came into contact with one Hetal Hakani (erstwhile partner of Defendant No. 1 Firm). Hetal Hakani, with a view to expand the business of Defendant No. 1 ('the Firm') approached the Plaintiff for a friendly loan. The Plaintiff in good faith and at the request of Hetal Hakani advanced various amounts to Defendant No. 1 from time to time. The Defendant repaid certain amounts to the Plaintiff both towards principal and interest as more particularly set out in the Plaint. Subsequent to certain advances made by the Plaintiffs to Defendant No. 1, a Loan Agreement dated 23rd November, 2014 was entered into between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1, inter alia, recording that the Plaintiff would advance a loan of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- to Defendant No. 1. Under the said Loan Agreement, Defendant No. 1 created certain securities in favour of the Plaintiffs. The Plaint sets out the manner in which the amounts were advanced by the Plaintiff to Defendant No. 1 and also sets out that Defendant No. 1 had on 31st March, 2016 issued two letters of confirmation to the Plaintiff issued by Hetal Hakani which confirmed : i. that an amount of Rs. 3,06,60,000/-along with interest was due and payable by the Defendant No. 1 to the Plaintiff and that the same would be paid along with interest on or before 31st December, 2017. ii. that an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- was due and payable by Hetal Hakani to the Plaintiff which amount would be paid along with the interest on or before 31st December, 2017. 3. Despite issuance of said letter of confirmation, no amounts were repaid by Defendant No. 1 to the Plaintiff. Thereafter, in April, 2021 Hetal Hakani passed away. The defendants No.3 to 5 are the legal heirs of deceased Hetal Hakani. The Plaintiff then learnt that the properties which were given as security to the Plaintiff under the loan agreement were in fact mortgaged with the Bank of Baroda without Plaintiff's knowledge and consent. These properties were subsequently sold by Bank of Baroda. 4. The Plaintiff filed the suit against the Defendants. 5. Mr. Kanade, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff, would submit that the loan advanced by the Plaintiff to Defendant No. 1 were evidenced by the various cheques/RTGS transactions more particularly referred to in the Plaint. He relied upon the copies of the certificates issued by Punjab National Bank (formerly known as Oriental bank of Commerce), JVPD Branch, Mumbai and HDFC Bank, Oshiwara Branch, Mumbai, which reflect the details of the amounts advanced. 6. Mr. Kanade, has also referred to the first Letter of Confirmation dated 31st March, 2017 (the first Letter of Confirmation) and pointed out therefrom that Hetal Hakani, on behalf of Defendant No. 1 had admitted that an amount of Rs. 3,06,60,000/- was due and payable by Defendant No. 1 to Plaintiff along with interest at the rate 12% per annum. He pointed out that by the said Letter of Confirmation Defendant No. 1 had undertaken to make the repayment of the said sum along with interest on or before 31st December, 2017 at Mumbai. Mr. Kanade, submitted that despite this unequivocal admission no mo