JUDGMENT : 1. The Court : In spite of notice the defendant is not represented. On 13th June, 2017 when the matter was taken up for hearing, an opportunity was given to the defendant to file affidavit-in-opposition. Since the defendant did not appear on that date, the Advocate-on-record of the plaintiff was directed to communicate the said order to Mr. Sanket Sarawgi, Advocate who has entered appearance in the suit on 25th April, 2017. 2. Even then the respondent is not represented nor the said respondent has filed any affidavit-in-opposition. 3. The claim in the suit is arising out of a short term inter corporate deposit. The petitioner contends that in and around October, 2013 at the request of the defendant an unsecured short term inter corporate loan was given to the respondent for a sum of Rs.1 crore for a period of 182 days at the rate of 15% per annum. After the expiry of the original period, at the request of the respondent, the said short term inter corporate loan for Rs.1 crore was renewed for a further period of 182 days at the rate of 15% per annum. The respondent has paid the interest accrued on such short term loan till 4th April, 2014 aggregating to a sum of Rs.4,76,384/- representing the balance interest amount payable at the end of first loan term ending on 20th April, 2014 but the three cheques aggregating to a sum of Rs.59,178/- towards the balance principal amount was dishonoured on presentation. Even the two post dated cheques towards the interest sum for the 2nd loan term was dishonoured on presentation and returned to the petitioner with the endorsement “funds insufficient”. In view of such dishonour of cheques, the petitioner demanded the principal as well as the interest amount when, on a request being made that they would pay interest for the 2 consecutive terms i.e., from 21st April, 2014 to 31st March, 2015 and pay interest at the rate of Rs.14,17,808/- at the end of the third term the petitioner agreed to such deferment and did not present the cheque for Rs.1 crore. The petitioner contends that although the respondent had deducted TDS at the rate of 10% on the interest sum of Rs.14,17,808/- but the balance amount towards interest aggregating to Rs.12,76,027/- was not paid to the petitioner. The petitioner contends that although the respondent had deducted TDS at the rate of 10% on the interest sum of Rs.14,17,808/- but the balance amount towards interest aggregating to Rs.12,76,027/- was not paid to the petitioner. The petitioner has referred to the balance confirmation duly signed by the respondent in which they have acknowledged that a sum of Rs.1,12,76,027/- is due and payable as on 1st April, 2015. The petitioner has referred to the ledge account as well as the balance confirmation and had submitted that in view of such unequivocal admission a summary decree may be passed in favour of the plaintiff. 4. Although an opportunity was given to the respondents and contest the proceedings and, in fact, on 13th June, 2017 instead of taking up the application ex parte, a further notice was directed to be served upon the respondent in order to enable the respondent to file an affidavit-in-opposition, the respondent has failed to appear nor any affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the respondent. 5. However, having regard to the fact that in the past the loan was renewed from time to time and there was no demand made by the plaintiff after 1st April, 2015 to repay the entire principal amount together with interest, in my view, for the present a decree shall be passed for the interest amount for which TDS was deducted at the rate of 10% per annum on 1st October, 2015. 6. Under such circumstances, there shall be a decree for a sum of Rs.14,17,808/- together with interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the said sum on and from April, 2015 until relization. There shall also be a decree for a sum of Rs.65,753/-being the balance interest amount for which a cheque issued on 21st April, 2015 was dishonoured on presentation. The said amount of Rs.65,753/- shall carry interest at the rate of 10% per annum on and from April, 2015 until relization. However, surprisingly no notice of demand was issued soon after April, 2015 for the amount claimed in the plaint. Although it is argued on behalf of the plaintiff that filing of the suit would constitute a notice of demand, in a Chapter XIIIA proceedings, this issue is not gone into as the matter to be decided at the trial of the suit. The balance claim is relegated to suit. 7. Although it is argued on behalf of the plaintiff that filing of the suit would constitute a notice of demand, in a Chapter XIIIA proceedings, this issue is not gone into as the matter to be decided at the trial of the suit. The balance claim is relegated to suit. 7. GA N.1650 of 2017 stands disposed of. The department shall draw up the decree as expeditiously as possible.