The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for evidence to determine the authority of an employee to place orders on behalf of the defendant, emphasizing the need for a triable issue to grant un-conditional leave to defend.

For reasons to be recorded separately, both the summons for judgments are rejected. Un-conditional leave to the defendant granted. Defendant to file their written statement within 4 weeks. Within 2 weeks thereafter parties to file their respective affidavit of documents and also complete discovery and inspection.

Stand over to 30.9.2015 for issues.

REASONS

1. The claims in both the suits are similar. The defences in both the suits are similar. The defendant is also common though the plaintiffs are different. Therefore, it would be convenient to dispose of both the summons for judgments by this common order.

2. Both the plaintiffs claim to have sold, supplied and delivered to the defendant various items made in Gold. According to the plaintiffs the defendant had placed the purchase orders, based on which the goods were supplied and corresponding invoices raised and the defendant, based on sham defence is refusing to make payment and therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to a summary decree.

3. The case of the plaintiffs in Summary Suit No.131 of 2013 is that since 2004-2005 one of the sister company of the plaintiffs was selling goods to the defendant which included Gold coins and various jewellery products. For the said business, the officers and employees of the said sister company interacted and coordinated, at the relevant time, with one Mr. Amit Gaine who was introduced as Deputy General Manager of the defendant company. Between July-2004 and December-2006 they claim to have had interactions by e-mail and telephone with Amit Gaine who placed orders upon the said sister company. The sister company supplied as requisitioned and were also paid.

4. The plaintiffs therefore, started doing business with the defendant through Amit Gaine. It is submitted that one Mr. Anuj Awasthi of the defendant informed the plaintiffs that Mr. Amit Gaine along with one Mr. K.D. Dotiwalla and one Mr. K.V. Kumar will be dealing with the plaintiffs and were authorized by the defendant to place orders upon the plaintiffs and as Amit Gaine interacted with the plaintiffs for placing several orders thereby indicating that he had the defendant's authority to place such orders and the defendant not having communicated to the plaintiffs that the said Mr. Amit Gaine did not have the authority to place such orders, Mr. Amit Gaine is assumed to have the apparent authority or atleast ostensible authority. It is the case of the defendant that Amit Gaine did not have any authority to place any orders on the plaintiffs and that too of such large quantity of Gold and that Mr. Anuj Awasthi has made no such representation. In my view, on this ground alone, the defendant is required to be given un-conditional leave to defend because whether Gaine had any authority at all is a triable issue.

5. The plaintiffs also stated that the purchase orders were all signed by Mr. K.V. Dotiwalla and Mr. K.V. Kumar. It is the defendant's case that the signatures have been forged as the said Mr. Dotiwalla and Mr. K.V. Kumar have not signed any purchase orders. This is another ground for leave to defend to be granted. It is also stated that the purchase orders said to have been placed on the plaintiffs were all bogus and a fraud has been played by the said Gaine on the plaintiffs and the said Gaine is now in judicial custody based on a complaint filed by the defendant with the Economic Offences Wing.

6. But as far as the plaintiffs are concerned, Gaine had ostensible authority. His action binds the defendant especially since there is no dispute that the goods were delivered. This is incorrect because the defendant has disputed that any goods were delivered to the defendant or to their account.

7. The fact that fraud has been played by Gaine and separate criminal proceedings have been filed against him are also not disputed. The stand of the plaintiffs is that Mr. Gaine had authority to commit to the transaction in question on behalf of the defendant and the defendant cannot now disc