In Summons for Judgment No.10 Of 2021- In Commercial Summary Suit No.10 Of 2021- BOMB HC- Summary Suit can be maintained based upon a balance confirmation of accounts is now only too well settled, holds Bombay High Court
Justice Arif S. Doctor [06-04-2023]

Read Order: Gopal Omprakash Ruia v. M/s. Singh & Sons

Chahat Varma

Mumbai, April 17, 2023: Terming defendants’ arguments as vexatious and frivolous, a single judge bench of the Bombay High Court allowed the summons for judgment and directed the defendant to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,07,06,786/- (Rupees One Crore Seven Lakhs Six Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty-Six only) with interest on the principal amount of Rs.94,12,652/- at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till payment and/or realization.

Justice Arif S. Doctor while hearing a commercial summary suit, stated that when deciding an application for leave to defend, the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited vs Hubtown Limited [LQ/SC/2016/1437] has to be considered.

“Entire defense of the Defendant is predicated upon Internal Forensic Audit Report, yet the Defendant has not annexed a copy of this Internal Forensic Audit Report to the Reply nor has the same been shown to the Court.”, observed Justice Arif S. Doctor.

It was further observed that it would be wholly malafide and inequitable for the Defendant to on the one hand claim the benefit of GST on the suit invoices and yet on the other challenge, the same as being bogus and/or fraudulently issued.

“The Defendant has admittedly (a) issued a balance confirmation of accounts (b) made part payment towards the invoices (c) issued cheques towards further part payment and (d) claimed benefits of GST based on the suit invoices. There is no denial to any of these facts nor any retraction of the balance confirmation. The law that a summary Suit can be maintained based upon a balance confirmation of accounts is now only too well settled.”, held Justice Arif S. Doctor.

Decreeing the suit, Justice Arif S. Doctor held that defendant has failed to make out a case for grant of leave either conditionally or unconditionally and is not entitled to any leave to defend.