2013 (4) TMI 900 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the suit under Order 37 of the CPC.
2. Territorial jurisdiction of the Court.
3. Limitation period for filing the suit.
4. Acknowledgment of debt by the defendant.
5. Disputes regarding the quality and quantity of goods supplied.
6. Claim for interest by the plaintiff.

Summary:

1. Maintainability of the Suit under Order 37 of the CPC:
The plaintiff instituted the suit u/s Order 37 of the CPC for recovery of Rs. 1,49,21,015/- due from the defendant towards invoices for Cold Rolled Stainless Steel Coils sold, supplied, and delivered by the plaintiff. The plaintiff also claimed Rs. 48,33,765/- towards interest @ 12% per annum from the due date of payment of each invoice till the date of institution of the suit.

2. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Court:
The defendant contested the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, arguing that all transactions and payments occurred outside Delhi. The plaintiff invoked the doctrine of "debtor must seek creditor," citing various judgments to support that the place where payments are made or required to be made is relevant for determining territorial jurisdiction. The Court held that the registered office of the plaintiff being at Delhi and the legal notice demanding payment being issued from Delhi, the Courts at Delhi have jurisdiction.

3. Limitation Period for Filing the Suit:
The defendant argued that the suit is barred by time, having been filed beyond three years from the date of the invoices. The Court, however, satisfied itself that the claim in the suit is within time, especially considering the Minutes of the meeting held on 02.06.2009, where the defendant acknowledged the liability.

4. Acknowledgment of Debt by the Defendant:
The plaintiff presented Minutes of a meeting held on 02.06.2009, where the defendant agreed to reconcile the account statement and acknowledged the old pending payment of Rs. 1,49,21,015/-. The Court found that the defendant's acknowledgment of liability in the said meeting negated any earlier grievances regarding the goods supplied.

5. Disputes Regarding the Quality and Quantity of Goods Supplied:
The defendant raised multiple disputes regarding short supply, excess supply, defective goods, and high prices. However, the Court noted that these issues were not pressed by the defendant's counsel during arguments, likely due to the acknowledgment of liability in the meeting on 02.06.2009. The Court found the defendant's objections to be vexatious and without basis.

6. Claim for Interest by the Plaintiff:
The Court did not award interest @ 12% per annum from the date of each invoice as claimed by the plaintiff. Instead, it awarded interest @ 10% per annum from 02.06.2009 till the date of institution of the suit, pendente lite, and for three months thereafter. If the defendant fails to pay the decretal amount within three months, interest @ 18% per annum will be applicable till realization.

Judgment:
The application for leave to defend was dismissed. The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff for Rs. 1,49,21,015/- with interest @ 10% per annum from 02.06.2009 till the date of institution of the suit, pendente lite, and for three months thereafter. Post three months, interest @ 18% per annum will be applicable till realization. The plaintiff was also entitled to costs as per schedule. The decree sheet was ordered to be drawn.