The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of a written contract and the requirements of a summary suit, as well as the impact of a criminal trial on a civil suit.

1. The parties are diamond merchants. The plaintiff carries on business in Belgium. The defendant carries on business in Mumbai and Surat. There have been transactions for the sale of diamonds between the parties.

2. The plaintiff sold certain polished diamonds to the defendant under 4 invoices dated 25th January, 2011, 26th January, 2011, 31st January, 2011 and 4rh February, 2011. The invoices were accompanied by 4 shipping instructions, 4 export documents and 4 airway bills. The goods were sent to the defendant in Surat, India.

3. These goods have been accepted by the defendant. It is stated that the goods were transported to Mumbai. The defendant has claimed that it has returned the goods to the plaintiff under its jangad/challan dated 4th February, 2011 to the plaintiff's address in Mumbai. The defendant claims that since the plaintiff had no office in Mumbai, but its partner only resided in Mumbai the diamonds could not be imported in Mumbai itself and hence the plaintiff requested the defendant to permit the plaintiff to use its name and address for the purpose of allowing import the goods by the plaintiff's partner. The defendant claims commission for such service, but has not sued for commission. The defendant has further claimed that the diamonds so sent by the plaintiff from Belgium were “duly handed over by the defendant” to the plaintiff's partner and the plaintiff's partner had executed a receipt in that behalf.

4. This case on merits would have to be considered. The supply of diamonds is admitted. The jangad/Challan made out by the defendant and stated to be signed by the plaintiff as receiver of the goods shown therein evidences the written contract between the parties made up of the 4 invoices and one jangad/challan signed by the plaintiff and written by the defendant.

5. The plaintiff has denied the receipt of the diamonds. The plaintiff has claimed that its partner's signature is forged. The defendant's defence cannot be prima facie seen in view of the plaintiff's denial. However the plaintiff's supply of goods can be clearly seen in view of the defendant's defence itself.

6. The defendant would contend that there is no written contract between the parties. The written contract is not made out as usual by the invoice accompanied by the delivery challans constituting a written contract between the parties. It will have to be seen whether the invoices of the plaintiff read with the jangad/challan of the defendant would constitute a written contract.

7. A Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Jyotsna K. Valia Vs. T.S. Parekh & Co. 2007(3) Bom. C.R. 772 has considered what would be a written contract between the parties. In paragraph 14 of the judgment it has considered Section 2(h) (wrongly typed as l)which defines “an agreement enforceable by law” to be a contract, Section 2(e) which defines the agreement as the set of promises forming the consideration for each other as also Section 10 showing what agreements are contracts.

8. Referring to the case of T.A. Ruf & Company Ltd. Vs. Pauwels (1919)1 K.B.660 the judgment has considered that the contract in writing would not necessarily mean a contract signed by both the parties, but it would be a contract only verified by the signature of one of the parties.

In fact in this case the invoices and the jangad read together show the signatures of both the parties.

9. The judgment also relies upon the case of the Madras High Court in the case of Lucky Electrical Stores, by Partner Mahendra Kumar Shah & Anr. Vs. Ramesh Steel House, by Partner Babulal 1988, Madras Law Reports, 187 in which it was held that even when the invoice of the plaintiff was not signed, but the goods were accepted and admittedly received by the purchaser, the document constitute a written contract between the parties. In this case the goods sent by the plaintiff under the 4 invoices are shown to have been received by the defendant in as much as the defendant has returned those goods to the pl