9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1970X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aintif s lawyers demanded payment from the Defendants. The Plaintif received about Rs.9 lakhs in that period (the correspondence inadvertently mentioned a slightly lower figure of Rs.7.5 lakhs but that furnishes no defence). The aggregate amount, according to the Plaintif, due to it on 3rd February 2017 was Rs.1,78,08,676/-. The Plaintif sent the Defendants a legal notice demanding payment and, in default, threatened recovery proceedings. The Writ of Summons having been served, the Defendants entered appearance. The Plaintif then filed present Summons for Judgment to which there is an Affidavit in Reply and an Affidavit in Rejoinder. The Affidavit in Reply says very many things, non of them persuasive. The oral submissions have been advisedly more subtle, and the argument before me today is that while the business relationship is not in dispute the Defendants do dispute that all 140 invoices are unpaid - What the Defendants are unable to show is that any payments were made in respect of any particular invoice. The law in this regard is well settled. If a party makes payment to his creditor against a specified bill and that payment is accepted it can only be applied towards satis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssues thereafter on 1st March 2019. - SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 99 OF 2018, COMM SUMMARY SUIT NO. 1198 OF 2018 - - - Dated:- 13-12-2018 - G.S. PATEL, J Mr Rashid Khan, i/b Ms Sumi Soman, for the Plaintiff. Mr Manoj Harit, i/b M Harit Company, for the Defendants Nos. 1 to 3. PC:- 1. Heard. 2. The claim in this Summary Suit under Order XXXVII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 ( CPC ) is for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,64,19,454.56 with interest at 18% per annum. The particulars of claim are at Exhibit O at page 520 of the Suit. This lists 140 invoices giving their invoice number, the invoice amount, the interest (which is separately computed in Exhibit N ) and the outstanding dues (claimed in accordance with Exhibit L to the Plaint). 3. Briefly stated, the transactions between the parties ran thus. 4. It is not disputed even in the Affidavit in Reply to the Summons for Judgment that the parties did have, and indeed continue to have, business dealings. The 1st Defendant is a partnership firm that does business in ofset printing. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are partners of the 1st Defendant. The Plaintif periodically supplied diferent typ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to raise finance. That in itself is not credible. There is no such qualification in the document itself and I find no such qualification or contention raised in the response to the Plaintif s Advocate s demand notice either. 6. The Writ of Summons having been served, the Defendants entered appearance. The Plaintif then filed present Summons for Judgment to which there is an Affidavit in Reply and an Affidavit in Rejoinder. The Affidavit in Reply says very many things, non of them persuasive. The oral submissions have been advisedly more subtle, and the argument before me today is that while the business relationship is not in dispute the Defendants do dispute that all 140 invoices are unpaid. According to them there are 13 invoices unpaid. On hearing this, I asked Mr Harit, the learned Advocate for the Defendants. to tell me what the admitted value of those 13 invoices was. I did so on the basis that if the Defendants say that the 13 invoices are due for payment, the Defendants must know which invoices are so due and what their value is. I have received no answer to this except to say that average invoice value is around Rs.50,000/-. This is no answer at all. It was also argued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whatsoever. There is no warrant in law to demand any minimum credit period absent a specific contract to the contrary. The result is that the Plaintif has possibly made a lower claim in interest by granting 120 days rather than computing interest from the date of invoice. The Defendants cannot demand that that claim be reduced even further by insisting on an interest-free credit period stretching into years on end for each invoice. 9. In the Affidavit in Reply the averment in paragraph 3(b) at page 16 is that because in the past the Defendants enjoyed 450 to 800 days of credit, therefore, the Defendants are entitled to this as a matter of right. The Plaintif s forbearance confers no right on the Defendants and it most certainly furnishes no tenable defence. In sub-paragraph (d), there is a denial of the Defendants letter dated 31st August 2016 at least to this extent: that it contains an admission of liability. The execution of the document is not disputed. The denial is without substance. The document itself in terms admits liability and confirms the balance that was according to the Defendants themselves due as on that date. To say that it was obtained by misrepresentation an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
