Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (3) TMI 1869

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... default, the defendant would be liable to pay interest on any sum due and payable by it, would be charged @ 18% per annum. However, in absence of any agreement or proof that the defendant is liable to pay interest @ 18% per annum, this Court holds that the defendant, in any case, should make payment of some interest on the admitted dues and in this case, in exercise of discretion, this Court holds that plaintiff is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from 31.01.2017 as mentioned in paragraph 16 of the plaint. Therefore, the interest would be ₹ 7,24,393/- only, till the date of disposal of this suit. The defendant is directed to make payment of the entire sum together with interest as indicated above, within a period of three months from the date of communication of the decree failing which the defendant shall be liable to pay further interest @ 9% per annum on the entire decretal amount till realization thereof. Suit is decreed for the sum mentioned. - C.S. No. 16 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 7-3-2018 - Sahidullah Munshi, J. For the Appellant: Raja Basu Chowdhury, Tanoy Chakraborty and Abhishek Singh JUDGMENT Sahidullah Munshi, J. 1. This is a suit filed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t, 3rd Floor, Kolkata - 700016. f) In order to execute the purchase orders from time to time the plaintiff invited RITES Limited by issuing call letters for inspection of SGCI Inserts once they are ready for supply to the defendant. g) RITES duly inspected the said goods and on passing the same issued inspection certificate in respect of such goods. h) In terms of the purchase order and upon having pre-inspected by RITES Limited the plaintiff supplied 1,23,710 pieces of SGCI Inserts under eight several invoices to the defendant which the defendant received, acknowledged and accepted without any dispute or demur on any count. i) Against the total supply of ₹ 1,08,10,686/- the defendant, from time to time, made part-payment to the tune of ₹ 34,00,000/- to the plaintiff on account of the aforesaid supply. All such payments were made through RTGS/NEFT at the plaintiff's Banker, State Bank of India. j) Instead of making payment of the entire value of the supplies the defendant kept silent over the matter and inasmuch as the same in excess of ₹ 74,10,686/- had fallen due, the plaintiff issued reminders requesting it to clear the balance sum of ₹ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eport of the Deputy Registrar (Court) and (Judicial) dated 16th June, 2017, the matter was placed under the 'undefended' category and it was heard as an 'undefended suit'. 4. In order to prove his case the plaintiff has produced various documents those were marked as Exhibits. Such documents are as follows :- Ext. A (collectively) - photocopies of letters addressed to Mr. Gautam Chatterjee for M/s. Surya Alloy Industries Ltd. being purchase orders dated 09.11.2015, 08.02.2016 and 17.06.2016 respectively. Ext. B (collectively) - letters dated 09.11.2015 addressed to M/s. RITES Ltd. being Inspection Charges against Jay Prestressed Products Ltd. and Inspection Call letter respectively. An original Money Receipt being No. 39281 dated 12.11.2015. Ext. C - An Inspection Certificate being Book No. 3641 by RITES Ltd. dated 30.11.2015. Ext. D (collectively) - letters dated 18.03.2016 addressed to M/s. RITES Ltd. being Inspection Charges against Jay Prestressed Products Ltd. and Inspection Call letter respectively. An original Money Receipt being No. 41108 dated 18.03.2016. An Inspection Certificate being Book No. 3727 by RITES Ltd. dated 09.04.2016. Ext. E .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ond letter written to RITES limited mentioning details of purchase order; the third one is the money receipt on account of inspection charges paid; and the fourth one is the inspection certificate issued by RITES after verification of quality of the goods. The witness deposed that the original of the first two letters are with the RITES whereas the money receipt and inspection certificate shown to him are in original. The said documents have been marked Exhibit 'D' (collectively). The witness was shown several other documents being letter dated 29th March, 2016 which are inspection call letter addressed to RITES mentioning the details of purchase order. Another document shown to the witness was a money receipt dated 29th March, 2016; next document being an inspection certificate dated 15th April, 2016 issued by RITES after being satisfied about its quality; letter dated 12th August, 2016 addressed to RITES giving details of purchase order and calculation of inspection charges; a letter being inspection call letter dated 12th August, 2016 addressed to RITES mentioning therein details of purchase order; the other document being original money receipt dated 12th August, 2016 a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... drawing analogy to the provisions of proviso to sub-Rule (5) of Rule 9 of Order V, Court can presume that the letters of demand were received by the defendant but they did not respond to the same in order to avoid payment of the dues to the plaintiff. In such circumstances, the documentary proof made available before this Court together with the unchallenged oral testimony of the plaintiff establishes that the plaintiff is entitled to the claim as made out in the plaint, that is, the claim for a sum of ₹ 74,10,686/- (Rupees Seventy Four Lakh Ten Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Six) only, being the principal amount outstanding on account of price of goods sold and delivered to the defendant by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has, however, claimed that there was an understanding between the plaintiff and the defendant that in case of any default, the defendant would be liable to pay interest on any sum due and payable by it, would be charged @ 18% per annum. However, in absence of any agreement or proof that the defendant is liable to pay interest @ 18% per annum, this Court holds that the defendant, in any case, should make payment of some interest on the admitted dues and in this c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates