2010 (4) TMI 1219 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the suit is within limitation.
2. Whether the defendant rejected five bills totaling Rs. 2,23,190.87.
3. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of cause of action.
4. Whether the suit has been signed, verified, and filed by a competent person.
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, and if so, at what rate.
6. Relief.

Summary:

Issue No. 1: Whether the suit is within limitation
The Trial Court dismissed the suit based on the conclusion that there was no running account between the parties, and each bill gave rise to a separate cause of action, thus the claims were barred by time. However, the High Court found that the last payment was made by the defendant on 12.07.2001, and according to Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963, a fresh period of limitation would commence from this date. The High Court held that the Trial Court's findings were unsustainable and set them aside.

Issue No. 2: Whether the defendant rejected five bills totaling Rs. 2,23,190.87
The High Court found that the defendant failed to provide any evidence or particulars regarding the alleged rejection of the five bills. The onus of proof was on the defendant, which it failed to discharge. The High Court noted that the defendant did not even state when the bills were rejected or provide proof of the reason for such rejection. Thus, the assertion of rejection was not credible, and the issue was decided in favor of the appellant.

Issue No. 3: Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of cause of action
The High Court held that the respondent failed to discharge the onus of proving misjoinder of causes of action. The respondent did not produce its books of account despite being served with a notice to produce them. The High Court found no substantiation of the respondent's contention and decided the issue in favor of the appellant.

Issue No. 4: Whether the suit has been signed, verified, and filed by a competent person
The High Court found that PW1, Ramesh Goyal, was authorized to act on behalf of the appellant-company, as evidenced by the extract of the Board of Directors' meeting. The respondent's counsel could not provide a cogent reason to dispute this. Thus, the issue was decided in favor of the appellant.

Issue Nos. 5 and 6: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, and if so, at what rate; Relief
The High Court held that the appellant was entitled to recover Rs. 2,27,588.81, the principal amount of the unpaid bills. Regarding interest, although the invoices mentioned 21% per annum, the High Court awarded interest at 12% per annum from 12.07.2001 until realization, considering the prevalent rate of interest. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside with no order as to costs.