Sum.S.No.

3614/10 Judgment 1                             

Registered on  : 21.04.2010
Decided on      : 23.10.2018
Duration          : 08 06 02   
                            Y  M  D

          EXHIBIT­

IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
SUMMARY SUIT NO. 3614 OF 2010
(HIGH COURT SUMMARY SUIT NO.1151 OF 2010) 
 
Chetan Sanena Proprietor of M/s.
Element Design Executors, having office
at 25/252, Element House, Ekta Nagar,
Kandivali (West), Mumbai­ 400067. .....Plaintiff

V/s.

1. M/s.Inter X, a partnership firm, having
their principal place of business at Shop
No.4, C/o. Jet Motors, Asalpha Link
Road, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai 400084
and also having adress at 12, 3rd floor,
Mahavir Building, K.D.Road, Vile Parle
(West), Mumbai 400056.

2. Kamlesh Ganatra

3. Vishal Ganatra,
Both No.2 and 3 of Mumbai, Indian
Inhabitants and partners of Defendant
No.1, having their business at Shop no.
4, C/o. Jet Motors, Asalpha Link 
Road, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai 400
084 and also having address at 12, 3rd
Floor, Mahavir Building, K.D.Road, Vile
Parle (West), Mumbai 400056.               ....Defendants
Sum.S.No. 3614/10 Judgment 2                             

CORAM :HIS HONOUR JUDGE
   SHRI. M.M.UMAR
                           (C. R. No.: 28)
DATED  :23/10/2018.

Advocate  Mr.Kalpesh Joshi for the plaintiff
Advocate Mr.Dilip Shah for the defendants.

              JUDGMENT

1. Plaintiff has filed this summary suit under order 37 of the code
of   Civil   Procedure   for   recovery   of   an   amount   of   Rs.9,16,072.80ps.
alongwith further interest at the rate of 24% p.a. on the principal sum
of Rs.7,63,394/­ from the date of filing of the suit till its realization.

2. The facts of the case can be briefly stated as under:
It   is   the   case   of   plaintiff   that   the   plaintiff   is   the   proprietory
concern and is engaged in the business of Interior Contracting work.
The defendant no.1 is a partnership firm, the defendant no.2 and 3 are
its   partners   and   the   plaintiff   carried   out   various   work   of   Civil   and
interior  fit outs work for them. It is contended that in the month of
December   2008,   the   defendants   through   one   Payal   Ganatra,   the
representative of defendant no.1 Firm, approached to the plaintiff for
the   purpose   of   carrying   out   interior   fit   out   work   for   their   client
M/s.Shreyance   Motors   Ltd.,   for   their   showroom/office   at   Worli   and
more particularly Civil work demolition, false ceiling, flooring, dry wall
partitions,   skirting,   internal   doors/storage/loose
furniture/windows/glazing,   painting   and   polishing   external   and
internal signage inclusive of graphic design, paneling, electric fittings
etc. It is contended that pursuant to the said Payal Ganatra, defendants
issued a letter of intent by her e­mail dated 25/12/2007 setting out the
Sum.S.No. 3614/10 Judgment 3                             

details terms and conditions including the requirements specification of
the   said   work.   The   plaintiff   accepted   the   terms   of   said   work   and
forwarded a signed copy of the said letter of intent to the defendant on
31/12/2007, as a token of its acceptance and as per the said letter of
intent   the   plaintiff   duly   completed   the   said   work   on   or   before
28/3/2008. The plaintiff issued  a bill of Rs.31,40,847.61ps. as per the
bill format provided in the clause no.7 of the letter of intent and it was
forwarded to the Architect and defendant no.1 Firm.   

3. It is contended that though the value of the contract work was
Rs.24,00,000/­ only as per the term of letter of intent, but there was a
provision for carrying out further work which are termed as extra items
wherever required in the said work subject to confirmation from the
said architect. It is contended that under the instruction and with the
confirmation   from   the   said   architect   the   plaintiff   carried   out   further
work on the said site to the tune of Rs.6,40,847/­ and said architect
issued   a   letter   dated   15/5/2008   saying  that   the  said  work   has  been
carried out by the plaintiff to the tune of Rs.31,40,847/­. It is submitted
that the defendant had made payment of Rs.19,97,200/­ to the plaintiff,
leaving   balance   of   Rs.11,43,647/­.   The   plaintiff   demanded   the   said
balance   amount,   from   defendant   by   letter   dated   28/8/2008   but   the
defendants have failed and neglected to make the payment. Thereafter,
the plaintiff also issued a letter dated 1/11/2008, and called upon to
the defendants to clear the outstanding dues, but they failed to comply
the same.  Thereafter, on the request of the client the plaintiff made the
adjustment   of   Rs.3,80,000/­   out   of   the   security   deposit   and   now   an
amount of Rs.7,63,394/­ is due against the defendants. Consequently,
the plaintiff has filed present suit.     
Sum.S.No. 3614/10 Judgment 4                             

4. Upon the service of Writ of Summons, the defendants gave their
appearance. Thereafter, the plaintiff took out Summons for Judgment.
The   defendant   sought   the   leave   to   defend   and   as   per   order   dated
22/11/2011 in Summons for Judgment no.272/2010 the Hon'ble High
Court was pleased to grant the unconditional leave to the defendant to
defend the suit. 

5. The defendant has resisted the suit claim by filing his Written
Statement   at Exhibit 2 on record. They have categorically denied the
contention of the plaintiff. It is contended that the said Payal Ganatra
could   not   have   approached   to   the   defendant   in   December   2008,
because she died in April 2008.   It is contended that the contract was
issued   in   the   name   of   defendant   no.1   firm   and   therefore,   if   a   sub
contract is given to the plaintiff, the contractor will definitely retain its
profile and if any amount is due under the bill is to be paid to the sub
contractor, why would main contractor work?   It is submitted that no
amount is due against the defendant and the claim of plaintiff is totally
false. It is contended that for the purpose of her business carried on by
deceased   Payal   Ganatra   in   the   name   of   defendant   no.1,   she   had
employed   a   permanent   team   of   technicians   and   contractors   from
different   fields.   It   is   contended   that   the   plaintiff   was   liable   to   pay
deceased Payal a sum of Rs.20,00,000/­ towards her profit/commission.
The defendant has contended that the suit is not maintainable under
Order 37 of CPC as no relief is falling within the ambit of Order 37 Rule
2 of CPC. Lastly, it is requested to dismiss the suit.  
  
6. Upon considering the rival contentions of the parties my learned
Sum.S.No. 3614/10 Judgment 5                             

predecessor in office has framed the following issues at Exhibit 3 and
my findings thereon for the reasons recorded are as follows:

Sr. ISSUES FINDINGS

No.
1 Whether plaintiff proves that defendants No, only Rs.6,63,647/­
are liable to pay Rs.9,16,072.80 ? with interest
2. Whether   the   plaintiff   is   entitled   for   the Partly in affirmative
suit claim?
3 What is due and payable ? As per final order
4 What order and decree? As per final order

REASONS
AS TO ISSUES NO.1 TO 3
7. These issues are interconnected with each other, therefore, I am
taking   them   together,   for   my   discussion   and   deciding   them
simultaneously, to avoid repetition.

8. In order to prove the suit claim, the plaintiff has examined to
PW 1 Chetan Sanena at Exhibit 18 and  PW 2 Milind Pai at Exhibit 26
and has closed his evidence by filing evidence closing pursis at Exhibit
28. In contra, the defendant has examined to one Kamlesh Ganatra at
Exhibit 29, to resist the suit claim of the plaintiff, besides that both the
parties have produced some documentary evidence in support of their
respective cases.
 
9. Uncontroverted and undisputed facts as seen from the pleadings
of the parties,  evidence and circumstances on record needs to be stated
first to outset for the better appreciation of the points in controversy.
There is no dispute that the contract was given by the defendant to the
Sum.S.No. 3614/10 Judgment 6                             

plaintiff   i.e.  PW  1  Chetan   Sanena. There  is  no  dispute  that  letter   of
intent (Exibit 21) was sent to the plaintiff by Payal Ganatra. There is no
dispute   that   Milind   Pai   is   the   architect   and   letter   dated   15/5/2008
(Exhibit 25) was given by Mr.Milind Pai. There is no dispute that after
completion of the work by plaintiff of Shreyance Motors Pvt.Ltd., Milind
Pai Architect issued letter at Exhibit 25 to the plaintiff.  

10. On   going   through   the   evidence   of   PW   1   Chetan   Sanena   it

appears   that   in   the   examination­in­chief   he   has   reiterated   abovesaid
contents   of   the   plaint,   elaborately   in   the   affidavit   filed   in   lieu   of
examination   in   chief.   During   the   course   of   his   searching   cross
examination he  states that he does not remember whether the amount
was returned back or not. One suggestion was given to PW 1 Chetan
that he has to pay Rs.5,00,000/­ to the defendant, he has denied. He
states that the amount of Rs.5,00,000/­ given by the defendant to him
was deducted from the claim. One suggestion was given to him that he
has received amount of Rs.20,00,000/­ including Rs.5,00,000/­ out of
Rs.31,00,000/­ and that his claim for  Rs.11,00,000/­  is  false,  he has
denied. He has admitted that Exhibit 24 was sent to Payal Ganatra, she
is not party in this suit. It has come in his cross examination that in para
no.10  of  the  plaint  he  has  stated  that  out  of  Rs.11,43,647/­, he   has
received   Rs.3,80,000/­   and  he   has  claimed   Rs.7,63,394/­   .  He  states
that he cannot say the exact date when he received Rs.3,80,000/­ and
from whom. So also, he does not remember whether he received that
amount by cheque or in cash. He states that as the work was completed
security deposit of Rs.3,80,000/­ was returned to him. One suggestion
was given to him that defendant has given advance of Rs.5,00,000/­ to
the plaintiff, he has denied.  PW 1 states that he cannot state regarding
Sum.S.No. 3614/10 Judgment 7                             

the relation between Payal Ganatra and defendant. He state that Exhibit
21   was   sent   to   him   by   Payal   Ganatra.   It   has   come   in   his   searching
examination that letter of intent was in respect of the work done at
Worli, at Company's “Thanks” Shreyance Motors Pvt.Ltd. He states that
Shreyance   Motors   Pvt.Ltd.   “Thanks”   is   the   name   of   Company.     One
suggestion   was   given   to   PW   1   Chetan   that   he   did   not   receive
Rs.5,00,000/­ towards mobilization advance by cheque and therefore,
he   is   not   remembering   the   details   of   the   Bank   transaction,   he   has
denied.

11. During   searching   cross   examination   of   PW   1   Chetan   ,   it   has

come on record that he started the work under dispute in the end of
January 2008, he completed the said work in the end of February 2008.
One   suggestion   was   given   to   him   that   he   completed   the   work   on
28/3/2008, he has denied. He states that he met with Payal Ganatra in
the   office   of   Mr.Milind   Pai,   prior   to   one   year   from   the   date   of   suit
transaction.   Payal   Ganatra   was   the   employee   of   Mr.Milind   Pai.   One
suggestion was given to him that Payal Ganatra could not execute the
suit work. Therefore, he took the suit work, he has denied. One more
suggestion  was given  to him  that as Mr.Milind Pai could not do the
work therefore, the suit contract was allotted to him as Mr.Milind Pai
was architect for Shreyance Motors, he has denied. One suggestion was
given to him that he has created the story of the plaint after the death
of Payal Ganatra, he has denied. 

12. On going through the evidence of PW 2 Milind Pai, it appears
that in the affidavit filed in lieu of examination in chief at Exhibit 26, he
has  stated  that  the  interior  work  of   his  client  M/s.Shreyance   Motors
Sum.S.No. 3614/10 Judgment 8                             

Pvt.Ltd. was done by plaintiff, who was the sub contractor to M/s.Inter­
X­ defendant no.1, who was awarded overall interior contract. He states
that Payal Ganatra was working as his associate and helping him out in
executing and supervising the contracts awarded to him as designing
architect.   He   states   that   the   contract   of   M/s.Shreyance   Pvt.Ltd.   was
given to the defendant no.1 firm at the request of Payal Ganatra and the
partners of the defendant no.1 viz. Vishal Ganatra and Kamlesh Ganatra
were solely responsible for completing the entire work. He states that
the bill amount of interior work carried out by Element to M/s.Inter­X
for Shreyance Motors Pvt. Ltd. works out to Rs.31,40,847/­ . He states
that he has personally verified the items and quantities as per the bills
at Exhibit 22 issued by the plaintiff to defendant no.1. He states that the
amount of Rs.3,80,000/­ was paid to the plaintiff out of the security
deposit lying with Shreyance Motors Pvt. Ltd. as performance security
by defendant no.1. He states that plaintiff had also handled the Snag
List and any service problems related to the site from time to time. He
states that he issued the certificate on 15/5/2008 .

13. During the searching cross­examination of PW 2 Milind Pai it
has come on record that at the time of issuing certificate at Exhibit 25
he was having copy, rates given to the clients and measurement sheet of
the work done. He has admitted that copy of the documents were given
to  him  by   the  plaintiff. He   has  admitted  that   Payal   Ganatra  was  his
employee and therefore, she used to handle his computer. He states that
his e­mail cannot be accessed by anybody else than him. One suggestion
was given to him that taking undue advantage of the death of Payal
Ganatra and to help to the plaintiff, he has prepared Exhibit 25, he has
denied.  
    
Sum.S.No. 3614/10 Judgment 9                             

14. Per contra, on going through the evidence of DW 1 Kamlesh it
appears that during the course of his searching cross­examination he
has   admitted   that   his   daughter   Payal   Ganatra   was   architect   by
profession and she worked with Milind Pai as a Architect. He states that
he does not remember the period for which his daughter worked with
Mr.Milind   Pai,   so   also,   he   doesnot   know   how   much   salary   she   was
getting. He states that he do not know plaintiff personally and he do not
remember whether he met with plaintiff at any point of time. He states
that   he   does   not   remember   that   his   daughter   introduced   plaintiff   to
Mr.Milind   Pai.   He   has   admitted   clearly   that   he   has   no   document   to
show that plaintiff was required to pay 10% of total bill amount of the
project to his daughter. So also, he has no document to show that some
amount was required to be paid to Mr.Milind Pai by the plaintiff. He
deposes that the project cost of Shreyance Motors is Rs.31,00,000/­ as
informed by his daughter Payal. He states that he does not know the
project cost of Shreyance Motors was Rs.35,00,000/­. So also, he does
not know whether the defendant no.1 received all the payments from
Shreyance Motors. He states that he does not remember that he gave
Rs.20,00,000/­ to the plaintiff for Shreyance Motors Project. So also, he
never demanded the alleged amount of Rs.3,80,000/­ from Shreyance
Motors Services towards refund of deposit. He states that he does not
know who has conducted the work of Shreyance Motors. He states that
he   never   received   any  letter   or  complaint   from  Shreyance   Motors in
respect of quality and quantity of the work. On suggestion was given to
him that he has deposed false and created imaginary story that plaintiff
was required to pay Rs.20,00,000/­ to his daughter, he has denied. He
states that he has not initiated any proceedings against the plaintiff for
an amount of Rs.9,00,000/­ as deposed in examination­in­chief. He has
Sum.S.No. 3614/10 Judgment 10                             

admitted that in his police statement he has stated that he is the owner
of   defendant   no.1   firm.   One   suggestion   was   given   to   him   that   the
plaintiff is entitled to receive the suit claim from the defendant firm and
that he is having all the information in respect of the work done by
defendant no.1 at Shreyance Motors, he has denied.  

15. The   learned   advocate   for   plaintiff   has   submitted   that   the
plaintiff has produced the sufficient oral and documentary evidence on
record to  prove the suit claim. It is submitted that the evidence of PW 1
Chetan Sanena and PW 2 Milind Pai is clear, cogent and supporting by
the documentary evidence on record.     It is submitted that from the
evidence on record it is clear that the plaintiff carried out the interior
work to M/s.Inter­X for Shreyance Motors Pvt.Ltd. for Rs.31,40,847/­. It
is submitted that PW 2 Milind Pai verified the said item and quantity as
per the bill issued by the plaintiff to the defendant no.1, which is at
Exhibit   22.   It   is   submitted   that   the   Inter­X   submitted   their   bill   to
M/s.Shreyance   Motors   Pvt.Ltd.   and   had   received   the   entire   contract
amount, except security deposit of Rs.3,80,000/­. It is submitted that as
the defendant did not pay the suit amount of the work carried out by
the plaintiff, the suit is liable to be decreed. During the course of his
argument the learned advocate for the plaintiff drew my attention on
the various documents filed by plaintiff on record and has requested to
decree the suit.
   
16. Per   Contra,   the   advocate   for   defendant   has   submitted   that
Ms.Payal Ganatra was an architect by profession and she worked under
Senior   Architect   Milind   Pai   (PW   2).   It   is   submitted   that   Ms.Payal
Ganatra   was   entitled   to   adjust   a   sum   of   Rs.20,00,000/­   out   of   the
Sum.S.No. 3614/10 Judgment 11                             

amount payable by Shreyance Motors Pvt.Ltd. and the balance amount
was payable to Chetan Sanena. It is submitted that no bill was raised by
Mr.Chetan   Sanena   upon   Payal   Ganatra   or   upon   Inter­X,   during   the
lifetime   of   Payal   Ganatra.   It   is   submitted   that   the   suit   claim   of   the
plaintiff   is   false   with   the   knowledge   of   plaintiff   and   therefore,   it   is
submitted to dismiss the suit as no amount of Rs.7,63,394/­ is due and
payable by the defendants to Mr.Chetan Sanena. 

17. I have duly considered the above submissions of both the sides
so also, I have gone carefully through the case record. It is pertinent to
mention   here   that   as   per   the   evidence   on   record   the   plaintiff
M/s.Element Design Executors executed the works as a subcontractor to
defendants   no.1   for   Shreyance   Motors   Pvt.Ltd.   It   appears   that   the
plaintiff carried out the total work to the tune of Rs.31,40,847/­ and the
defendant had submitted their bills to M/s.Shreyance Motors Pvt.Ltd.
and had received the entire contract amount. It appears that though the
defendant received the amount but they did not pay the full amount to
the plaintiff for the work done by him. From the evidence on record it
appears   that   the   security   deposit   of   Rs.3,80,000/­   was   lying   with
Shreyance Motors Pvt.Ltd. as performance Security by defendant no.1
was paid to the plaintiff. From the evidence on record it appears that
the plaintiff indulged in service problems related to the site from time to
time during the course of carrying out the work. It appears that on the
request of plaintiff­Chetan Sanena, PW 2 Milind Pai visited on the spot
he had personally verified the items and quantity as per bill agreement
(Exhibit 22) and thereafter, PW 2 issued the certificate at Exhibit 25.

18. There is no dispute that the daughter of DW 1 Kamlesh Ganatra
Sum.S.No. 3614/10 Judgment 12                             

viz.Ms.Payal Ganatra was Architect and was working with PW 2 Milind
Pai. There is no positive and convincing evidence on record to show
that plaintiff, PW 2 Milind Pai with Ms.Payal Ganatra bagged contract
work worth Rs.1,70,00,000/­ for interior and fit outs for a hospital in
Goa under Milind Pai arrangements. There is no positive evidence even
to   demonstrate   that   Ms.Payal   Ganatra   was   entitled   to   receive
commission on alleged work for a hospital in Goa. There is nothing on
record to show that Ms.Payal Ganatra was entitled to adjust a sum of
Rs.20,00,000/­ out of the amount payable by Shreyance Motors Pvt.Ltd.
at Worli, Mumbai, and pay the balance amount to the plaintiff Chetan
Senane. Therefore, the defence raised by the defendant in the written
statement appears not probable.

19. There   is   nothing   on   record   to   show   that   after   the   death   of

Ms.Payal   Ganatra   the   plaintiff   all   of   sudden   and   with   dishonest
intention raised the  bogus claim to take out the  disadvantage. Thus,
from the evidence and circumstances on record, it is crystal clear that
the plaintiff has sufficiently proved that he is entitle to the suit claim
amount. It is worth place to mention here that the defence raised by the
defendant appears devoid of any material, substance and evidence. It is
unacceptable   and   merits   no   consideration.   On   the   other   hand,   it
appears that the plaintiff has proved its suit claim independently and
the   defendants   have   utterly   failed   to   establish   that   the   plaintiff   or
anybody was liable  to pay an  amount of  Rs.20,00,000/­ to deceased
Payal Ganatra and remaining amount to the plaintiff.  From   the   oral
and   documentary   evidence   on   record,   it   can   be   concluded   that   the
following facts are proved:
Sum.S.No. 3614/10 Judgment 13                             

1)  Contract Amount ­ Rs.24,00,000/­
2)  Extra Work done by
     Plaintiff on the site  ­ Rs. 6,40,847/­
             ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
 Rs. 30,40,847/­
3)   Defendant paid     ­ Rs.19,97,200/­
                        ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
                                      Rs.10,43,647/­
4)  Adjustment of Security
     deposit amount        Rs. 3,80,000/­ out of balance amount of 
                                                             Rs.10,43,200/­
                                    ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Outstanding amount     Rs. 6,63,647/­
                                   =========   
Hence, in view of the matter, I answer to issue no. 1 & 2 accordingly. 
   As To Issue No.3        
20.  In view of the aforesaid discussion I reached to the conclusion
that the plaintiff has proved the suit claim as above. Therefore, the suit
is liable to be decreed. In the result, following order: 

­: ORDER :­

1.  The Summary Suit No.3614/10 is partly decreed with costs. 
2.  Defendants shall pay an amount of Rs.6,63,643/­ to the plaintiff
alongwith interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the
suit i.e. 22/2/2010 till its realisation. 

3. Decree shall be drawn up accordingly.
              
       (M.M.UMAR)
                            Judge,
Date : 23/10/2018                   City Civil Court, Gr. Bombay

Dictated on : 23/10/2018   
Transcribed on : 23/10/2018
Signed on : 31/10/2018
 Sum.S.No. 3614/10 Judgment 14                             

“CERTIFIED   TO   BE   TRUE   AND   CORRECT   COPY   OF   THE   ORIGINAL

SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”

UPLOAD DATE     TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER 

      23/10/2018 11.30p.m. Mrs.Jyoti R.Mane

Name of the Judge HHJ Shri M.M.Umar(CR No.28)
Date of Pronouncement of     23/10/2018
Judgment/Order.
Judgment/order signed by P.O on     31/10/2018
Judgment/order uploaded on      1/11/2018