JUDGMENT :

1. The present suit is filed as a summary suit under Order XXXVII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,20,48,000/- along with interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till payment and/or realization.

2. The defendant No. 1 appointed the plaintiff as a Chartered Accountant and the plaintiff has rendered services of consultation, accounting and representing the defendants’ clients and various group companies/firms of the partners of defendant No. 1 in their taxation and auditing services. On account of offering professional services, there was an outstanding sum of an amount of Rs. 68 lakhs as professional fees due and payable by the defendants to the plaintiffs. There was also an outstanding in the account of Miss Miloni Ramesh Vora, the daughter of the plaintiffs in the books of defendant No. 1 to the tune of Rs. 28 lakhs. Accordingly, a total of Rs. 96 lakh was an amount due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiffs. The defendant No. 1 agreed to settle the said professional fees by allotting a commercial unit admeasuring 600 square feet carpet area in the project at Bandra known as “Water Front”, situate at Turner Road Bandra (West) for a total consideration of Rs. 1,32,00,000/-.

3. The plaintiff and the defendant executed a Memorandum of understanding in November 2020 for allotment of a commercial unit ad-measuring 600 square feet in the project for a consideration of Rs. 1,32,00,000/-. It was agreed in the MOU that the balance will be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant on receipt of possession of the commercial unit adjusted against the taxes, other charges. The plaintiff has learnt that the defendants have taken a loan from India Infoline Finance Limited (IIFL) in respect of the Project and has executed an Indenture of Mortgage dated 31st March 2015.

4. The plaintiff learnt that the loan taken by the defendants was now classified as an NPA as per RBI guidelines and the outstanding as per the notice under section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is to the tune of Rs. 147,45,89,688/-.

5. In these circumstances, the plaintiff by his advocate’s letter dated 30th September 2021, placed the above facts on the record, terminated the MOU and called upon the defendants to refund the sum of Rs. 96 lakhs along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from November 2020 till payment and/or realization thereof.

6. The plaintiffs have learnt that the defendant has not proceeded with the project since then and have constructed only up to the plinth since 31st March 2018. Besides this, there is an outstanding of Rs.147,45,89,688/- due and payable to IIFL. In these circumstances the plaintiff has filed a suit as a summary suit for recovery of outstanding dues. As per the particulars of claim, more particularly, stated at Exhibit F of the plaint, an amount of Rs.1,20,48,000/- is due and payable by the defendants jointly and severally to the plaintiffs along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till payment and/or realization.

7. The writ of summons was served by the plaintiff upon the defendants on 4th August 2022 and an affidavit of service to that effect has been filed by the bailiff from the office of the sheriff of Bombay on 26th September 2022. In spite of service upon the defendants, they failed to enter an appearance in the matter.

8. Mr. Gada the learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that in view of Order XXXVII Rule 2(3), the plaintiff is entitled to a judgment forthwith. By an order dated 10th July 2023 this court recorded that the plaintiff has filed the affidavit of evidence in lieu of examination-in-chief dated 3rd January 2023 of Mr. Ramesh Nanalal Vora, who has administered oath in the court and also tendered the original documents on behalf of the plaintiff along with an affidavit dated 3rd January 2023.

9. I