9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Determination of the amount due from the respondents for goods supplied. 2. Entitlement of the petitioners to interest on the due amount and the applicable rate. 3. Verification of whether the price of the goods supplied was duly paid by the respondents. Analysis: The petitioners filed a petition under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking recovery of Rs. 44,021.37. Petitioner No. 1 was acquired by petitioner No. 2 under the Maruti Ltd. (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980. The dispute arose from business transactions between the petitioners and the respondents dating back to 1975, resulting in a credit balance of Rs. 25,743.84 in favor of the petitioners. The respondents, a partnership concern, contested the claim, alleging that bills were not properly credited and payments were made promptly within thirty days of goods delivery. The court framed three key issues for determination based on the parties' contentions. The petitioners presented PW-1, an ex-accounts officer, who testified to the ledger entries supporting the amount due from the respondents. In contrast, RW-1, a witness for the respondents, claimed that payments were made promptly upon goods inspection. However, the court noted discrepancies in the respondents' defense, highlighting the lack of specific evidence or cross-examination to substantiate their claims. The court emphasized the importance of confronting witnesses with relevant evidence during cross-examination to challenge their testimony effectively. Regarding the first issue, the court relied on the petitioner's statement and upheld the entries in the account books as sufficient evidence to establish the amount due from the respondents. Citing legal precedents, the court emphasized that the plaintiff's statement on oath could support entries in account books to fix liability. Consequently, the court found in favor of the petitioners, concluding that Rs. 25,743.84 was due from the respondents for the goods supplied. On the second issue, the court invoked section 61(2)(a) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, to award interest at 9% per annum on the due amount from the date it fell due until payment. This decision was based on the discretion granted to courts to determine interest rates in such cases. Lastly, the court addressed the third issue, noting the lack of substantial evidence from the respondents to refute the amount due. Consequently, the court ruled against the respondents on this issue. Ultimately, a decree was passed in favor of the petitioners for the recovery of Rs. 25,743.84 along with interest at 9% per annum from the due date until payment, with costs awarded to the petitioners.
|
