Madras High Court
M/S. Mepco Industries Limited vs M/S. Profile Industrial Diamond Tools on 28 November, 2018
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED:28.11.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
S.A.(MD).No.98 of 2007
M/s. Mepco Industries Limited,
Madurai.
Represented by its Managing Director,
Mr.S.Annamalai,
No.17, Vallabai Road,
Madurai-625 002. ..Appellant / Appellant / Plaintiff
Vs.
M/s. Profile Industrial Diamond Tools,
Represented by its Proprietor,
Mr.S.Chandrasekaran,
No.26, Appachi Nagar,
Tirupur-638 607. ...Respondent / Respondent /
Defendant
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C. as against
the judgment and decree dated 21.04.2006 made in A.S.No.37 of 2005,
on the file of the Principle District Court, Madurai, by confirming the
judgment and decree dated 05.04.2005, made in O.S.No.198 of 2002, on
the file of the 1st Additional Sub-Judge, Madurai.
For Appellant : S.Kadarkarai
For Respondent : Mr.K.Muthu Kamkchi
for Mr.K.Ramakrishnan
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff in O.S.No.198 of 2002, has come forward with this appeal challenging the dismissal of the suit for recovery of money filed on the basis of goods supplied and delivered.
2.According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff was doing business in manufacturing and selling synthetic industrial diamonds. The defendant, who was carrying on manufacturing and selling of diamond cutting tools had purchased goods from the plaintiff on credit basis. Since the defendant did not come forward to pay the money due under various invoices, the plaintiff was forced to file the present suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,02,108/-.
3.The suit was resisted by the defendant contending that the plaint is verified by the Secretary of the company, since he is not an authorized person to sign the plaint, the suit is not maintainable for want of proper verification of the plaint. It was further contended that the Courts at Madurai did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. On the merits of the claim, the defendant would contend that the plaintiff supplied powders on trial and there was an understanding of extension of co- operation with the defendant to improve the quality of the products and http://www.judis.nic.in there was no commitment for payment on the side of the defendant and 3 there was no time limit for making any payment. The defendant denied all the invoices claimed by the plaintiff. He further claimed that the invoices were self serving cooked up documents created for the purpose of the filing of the above suit.
4.At trial, one Balamurugan, who is the salesofficer of the plaintiff's company was examined as P.W.1 and two other witnesses were also examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3. Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.52 were marked on the side of the plaintiff. One Sridharan, Office Assistant, employed with the defendant was examined as D.W.1. Exs.B.1 to Ex.B.18 were marked on the side of the defendant.
5.The learned I Additional Sub Judge, Madurai, who tried the suit concluded that the verification of the plaint by the Secretary of the Company is not proper, since it has not been proved that the Secretary is an authorized person to sign and verify the pleadings. The learned trial Judge also found that the plaintiff has not proved that the monies were due under the invoices which was filed as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.12.
6.As regards the claim of the plaintiff that the defendant has admitted the liability under Ex.A.51. The learned trial Judge relied upon the evidence of D.W.1, wherein it has stated as follows:-
http://www.judis.nic.in 4 “vf;];gpl.;.v..51f;Fk; ,e;j tof;fpw;Fk; ve;jtpj njhlh;Gk; ,y;iy. nkg;Nfh ,dl];bhp]; vq;fs; epWtdk; %yk; gpw epWtdq;fSf;F ilikd; gTlh; tpw;gid nra;J te;;jhh;fs;. me;j tpw;gid rk;ge;jk;khf mth;fs; rk;ge;jk;gl;l epWtdhj;jpd; %yk; ngw;Wf;nfhz;lhh;fs;. kw;w fk;ngdpfs; nkg;Nfh ,dl];bhp]f;F; nfhLf;fNtz;Ba tptuk; vf];gpl.;.v..51y; Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ. thjp epWtdk; juk; Fiwe;j ilikd; gTlh;fis mDg;gpajhy; gpur;rid Vw;gl;lJ vd;w tptuk; v51y; Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ. juk; Fiwe;j ilikd; gTlh;fis thjp epWtdk; mDg;gpajhy;; kw;w epWtdq;fs; mth;fSf;F gzk; nfhLg;gij epWj;jp tpl;lhh;fs; vd;w tptuKk; mjpy; Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ. juk; Fiwe;j gTliu mDg;gpajhy; mjw;fhd tpiyapy; njhifapy; js;Sgb nra;J nfhs;tjhf thjp epWtdk; xg;Gf;nfhz;l tptuk; me;j fbjj;jpy; Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ. NtW epWtdq;fSf;F thjp epWtdk; ilikd; gTlh; mDg;gpaJ me;j epWtdj;jpw;f;Fk; thjp epWtdj;jpw;f;Fk; ,ilNa Nehpilahf eilngw;wJ. vq;fs; fk;ngdp %yk; eilngwtpy;iy. gp.51 fBjj;jpy; &.20>000 b.b rk;ge;jkhf cs;sJ. ehq;fs; kj;jpa];jk; Ngrpajhy; vq;fs; %ykhf me;j &.20>000 b.b. mDg;gg;gl;Ls;sJ.”
7.On the above evidence the learned tral Judge concluded Ex.A.51 does not relate to the suit transaction and it relates to monies payable by other companies. The learned trial Judge was of the opinion that the plaintiff has not established that the amounts claimed in the suit are due and payable by the defendant. On the said conclusion, the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit.
http://www.judis.nic.in 5
8.Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S.No.37 of 2005, on the file of the District Court, Madurai.
9.The learned District Judge agreed with the conclusions of the trial Court on both the Counts and dismissed the appeal. Pending appeal an application was filed by the plaintiff seeking to produce four documents as an additional evidence. The said application was also dismissed by the learned appellate Judge. Aggrieved, the plaintiff is on appeal.
10.The following questions of law were framed by this Court at the time of admission:-
“1.Whether the Courts below are correct in dismissing the suit on the ground that the suit itself is not maintainable especially when the provision under Order 29 Rule 1 r/w. Order 6 Rule 15 of Code of Civil Procedure?
2.Whether the Courts below are correct in shifting the burden on the plaintiff / appellant especially when the defendant / respondent himself and defendant / respondent himself had admitted and acknowledged the liability?
http://www.judis.nic.in 6
3.Whether the Courts below are correct in dismissing the suit when the respondent / defendant admitted his liability through Ex.A.51 by specifically referring Ex.A.52 wherein the plaintiff has claimed the dues payable as per the invoices?
4.Whether the Courts below are correct in
dismissing the suit when the defendant /
respondent did not discharge his burden by
producing their own accounts in the circumstances when they specifically admitted the liability under Ex.A.51?
5.Whether the Courts below are correct in dismissing the suit without formulating the correct issues?
6.Whether the judgment and decree of the Courts below are vitiated for failing to consider the entire evidence and to apply the correct principle of law?”
11.I have heard Mr.S.Kadarkarai, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.V.Muthu Kamakchi for Mr.K.Ramakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
12.Mr.S.Kadarkarai, learned counsel appearing for the appellant / http://www.judis.nic.in plaintiff would contend that both the Courts below were wrong in 7 concluding that the Secretary of the company has no power to sign and verify the pleadings. In support of this argument, the learned counsel would rely upon the provisions of Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure Which reads as follows:
ORDER XXIX- SUITS BY OR AGAINST
CORPORATIONS
Subscription and verification of pleading— In suits by or against a corporation, any pleading may be signed and verified on behalf of the corporation by the security or by any director or other principal officer of the corporation who is able to depose to the facts of the case.
13.He would also rely upon the proviso to Order 6 Rule 14 of C.P.C which enables verification of pleadings by any person duly authorized to sign the same. Inviting my attention to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 3-(UNITED BANK OF INDIA VS. NARESH KUMAR AND OTHERS), the learned counsel would contend that the Courts below have committed the grievous error in dismissing the suit on the ground that the same has been signed and verified by the Secretary of the Company.
14.Contending per contra Mr.K.Muthu Kamakchi, learned counsel appearing for the defendant would submit that the Courts below were http://www.judis.nic.in 8 right in concluding that the plaint verified by the Secretary is incompetent and in as much as, it was not shown that the Secretary was duly authorized to verify the pleadings on behalf of the plaintiff.
15.On the factual aspects, Mr.S.Kadarkarai, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the defendant had unequivocally admitted the liability under Ex.A.51. He would also point out that the supporting documents like day books and ledgers have been filed to show all the amounts paid by the defendant were given credit to the remaining balance was the subject matter of the suit.
16.Mr.S.Kadarkarai, learned counsel would also fault the Courts below for not considering the evidence on record in a proper manner and mis-interpreting the contents of Ex.A.51. Pointing out that Ex.A.51 is a reply to the letter dated 27.10.1999 which forms part of the series of documents marked as Ex.A.52. He would submit that Ex.A.51 refers to the letter dated 27.11.1999 and clearly states that the dues to the plaintiff are admitted and the defendant had in fact pleaded that considering the competition in the business, losses must ne borne by the plaintiff. On the contents of Ex.A.51, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the interpretation of the document by the Courts below is perverse and hence the same has to be interfered with. http://www.judis.nic.in 9
17.Mr.K.Muthu Kamakchi, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent would submit that Ex.A.51 relates to the dues of other persons to the plaintiff and it was written on behalf of the others and hence, the same cannot be treated as acknowledgement of liability on the part of the defendant. He would also point out that the evidence of P.W.2 and submit that the P.W.2 has in fact admitted that there is no amount due payable by the defendant.
18.I have considered the rival submissions.. Substantial Question of Law No.1 It relates to the Authority of the Secretary of the plaintiff to sign and verify the pleadings. Both the Courts below have on a erroneous understanding of the proviso to Order 16 of Rule 14 of C.P.C, come to the conclusion that the Secretary of the company has no right to sign and verify the pleading. To say least the findings of the Courts below are against the very provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. http://www.judis.nic.in 10 19 .Order 6 Rule 14 reads as follows:-
“14.Pleading to be signed.- Every pleading shall be signed by the party and his pleader (if an):
Provided that where a party pleading is, by reason of absence or for other good cause, unable to sign the pleading, it may be signed by any person duly authorized by him to sign the same or to sue or defend on his behalf.
20.Order 6 relates to general pleadings. The proviso to Order 6 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure enables any person authorized by the plaintiff or the defendant to sign and verify the pleadings. Order 29 as the Special provision which deals that suits by or against Corporations.
21. Order 29 Rule 1 reads as follows:-
“Subscription and verification of pleading— In suits by or against a corporation, any pleading may be signed and verified on behalf of the corporation by the Secretary or by any director or other principal officer of the corporation who is able to depose to the facts of the case.”
22.A plain reading of the above provision would show that wherever a suit is filed by a company or a Corporation, the same can be signed and verified http://www.judis.nic.in on behalf of the Corporation by its Secretary or by any Director or 11 other Principal Officer of the Corporation, who is able to depose to the facts of the case.
23.As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the Courts below have not adverted to the proviso to Order 29 Rule 1 and have come to the conclusion that signing of the plaint by the Secretary is improper. While considering a similar question, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in fact deprecated the practice of dismissal suits on the ground that the plaint is not signed and verified by the competent person, incase, the plaint is instituted by the Corporation. In doing so, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed Paragraph No.10 as follows:-
10.It cannot be disputed that a Company like the appellant can sue and be sued in its own name. Under Order 6 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure a pleading is required to be signed by the party and its pleader, if any. As a company is a juristic entity it is obvious that some person has to sign the pleadings on behalf of the company. Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, therefore, provides that in a suit or by against a Corporation the Secretary or any Director or other Principal Officer of the Corporation who is able to the facts of the case might sign and verify on behalf of the company.
Reading order 6, Rule 14 together with Order 29, http://www.judis.nic.in Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure it would 12 appear that even in the absence of any formal letter of authority or power of attorney having been executed a person referred to in Rule 1 of Order 29 can, by virtue of the office which he holds, sign and verify the pleadings on behalf of the Corporation. In addition thereto and dehors Order 29, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure as a company is a juristic entity, it can duly authorise any person to sign the plaint or the written statement on its behalf and this would be regarded as sufficient compliance with the provisions of Order 6, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A person may be expressly authorised to sign the pleadings on behalf of the company, for example, by the Board of Directors passing a resolution to that effect or by a Power of attorney being executed in favour of any individual. In absence thereof and in cases where pleadings have been signed by one of its officers a Corporation can ratify the said action of its Officer in signing the pleadings. Such ratification can be express or implied. The Court can on the basis of the evidence on record, and after taking all the circumstances of the case, specially with regard to the conduct of the trial, come to the conclusion that the Corporation had ratified the act of signing of the pleading by its Officer.” http://www.judis.nic.in 13
24.Unfortunately, the above dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered way back in the year 1997 has not been brought to the notice of the Courts below. In view of the above first question of law is answered in favour of the appellant and against the respondent, holding that the suit has framed, signed and verified by the Secretary of the appellant Company is maintainable.
25.The other questions of law 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are taken up together for consideration since they are of interconnected. The plaintiff had come forward with the above suit contending that the defendant has not made payment for amounts due under various invoices. The invoices were also by the plaintiff and the invoices were also marked as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.12. The relevant debit memos were also filed as Ex.A.13 and Ex.A.
14. The speed post receipts along with the postal acknowledgemens evidencing the supply of goods have been marked as Ex.A.16 to Ex.A.38. It is not the case of the defendant that the goods were not supplied. The ledgers for the plaintiff company for the relevant period have filed as Ex.A.42 to Ex.A.46. The letters of the defendant placing orders were filed as Ex.A.47 and Ex.A.48. The letters of the plaintiff's Company addressed to the defendant requiring the defendant to pay the dues were filed as Ex.A.52 series. In one of the said letters bearing No.1610, dated 27.10.1999, the plaintiff has claimed a sum of Rs.2,13,939.13 as the http://www.judis.nic.in 14 amount due and payable under various invoices. In response to the said letter, the defendant had claimed that it is facing losses because of the competition and the plaintiff was aware of the difficulties faced by the defendant. It is also claimed that the plaintiff's representative was directly taken to the customers and the problems faced by the customers were informed to him. The relevant contents of Ex.A.51 which reads as follows:-
“The difficulties arisen were well known on your side also since every problem on customers side was analysed along with your representative at their site. We had in fact directly taken your representative to every customer and the problem faced by us was well known to your side also.” “All the losses that was taken on our side and was not diverted to Mepco” At a stage the dues were nearly 5.0 Lakhs and was reduced to 2.13 Lakhs which would have been taken note of.” Finally it reads that the defendant is enclosing a Demand Draft for Rs.20,000/- and we hope to clear the dues earlier.
http://www.judis.nic.in 15
26.Of course the contents of Ex.A.51 was sought to be explained by D.W.1, claiming that the sale does not relate to the suit transaction. D.W. 1 in his evidence has stated as follows:-
“vf;];gpl.;.v..51f;Fk; ,e;j tof;fpw;Fk; ve;jtpj njhlh;Gk; ,y;iy. nkg;Nfh ,dl];bhp]; vq;fs; epWtdk; %yk; gpw epWtdq;fSf;F ilikd; gTlh; tpw;gid nra;J te;;jhh;fs;. me;j tpw;gid rk;ge;jk;khf mth;fs; rk;ge;jk;gl;l epWtdhj;jpd; %yk; ngw;Wf;nfhz;lhh;fs;. kw;w fk;ngdpfs;
nkg;Nfh ,dl];bhp]f;F; nfhLf;fNtz;Ba tptuk; vf];gpl.;.v.. 51y; Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ. thjp epWtdk; juk; Fiwe;j ilikd; gTlh;fis mDg;gpajhy; gpur;rid Vw;gl;lJ vd;w tptuk; v51y; Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ. juk; Fiwe;j ilikd; gTlh;fis thjp epWtdk; mDg;gpajhy;; kw;w epWtdq;fs; mth;fSf;F gzk; nfhLg;gij epWj;jp tpl;lhh;fs; vd;w tptuKk; mjpy; Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ. juk; Fiwe;j gTliu mDg;gpajhy; mjw;fhd tpiyapy; njhifapy; js;Sgb nra;J nfhs;tjhf thjp epWtdk; xg;Gf;nfhz;l tptuk; me;j fbjj;jpy; Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ. NtW epWtdq;fSf;F thjp epWtdk; ilikd; gTlh; mDg;gpaJ me;j epWtdj;jpw;f;Fk; thjp epWtdj;jpw;f;Fk; ,ilNa Nehpilahf eilngw;wJ. vq;fs; fk;ngdp %yk; eilngwtpy;iy. gp.51 fBjj;jpy; &.20>000 b.b rk;ge;jkhf cs;sJ. ehq;fs; kj;jpa];jk; Ngrpajhy; vq;fs; %ykhf me;j &.20>000 b.b. mDg;gg;gl;Ls;sJ.” http://www.judis.nic.in 16
27.Relying upon this evidence, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that Ex.A.51 cannot be taken as an acknowledgement of liability on the part of the defendant. The learned trial Judge had extracted the above portion of evidence as if it is the evidence of P.W.1 and has concluded that the plaintiff has not established that Ex.A.51 relates to the suit transaction. Though the learned Appellate Judge had referred to the said evidence had over looked the fact that there was no plea by the defendant that it was only acting as a intermediatory in facilitating supply of goods of the plaintiff to the other consumers. The other documentary evidence in the form of Ex.A.15 to Ex.A.38 viz., the postal receipts and acknowledgement would show that the supply of goods by the plaintiff was to the defendant. The ledgers produced by the plaintiff company would show that the claim of D.W.1 in the evidence, made to the effect, that they were only acting as intermediary is an after thought. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would make valiant attempt to escape the liability. He would refer to the evidence of P.W.2 and claim that the witness had admitted that the entire amount due has been paid by the defendant.
28.The learned counsel would refer to the following evidence of P.W.2 in as cross-examination.
",d;tha;]; ek;gh; 15 24.03.1998 md;W mDgg;gl;ljhf $wpAs;Nsd;. mNj Njjpapy; &.10>000f;fhd b.bia gpujpthjp mDg;gpAs;shu;. mjw;F http://www.judis.nic.in gpwF 8.4.98y; gpujpthjp b.b mDg;gpAs;shu; 100000 mDg;gpajw;fhd 17 b.b.ek;gh; 460795. 8.4.98 Njjp md;W mDg;gg;gl;l b.b.apy; cs;s njhif 100000 mjid mDg;gpajw;fhd fbjk; vd;dplk; fhl;lg;gLtJ mJ vf;];gpl;;.gp.9. 7.4.98 md;W gpujpthjp epWtdk; &.4000 mDg;gpAs;shu;fs;. mjw;fhd b.b.ek;gu; 338508. mjw;F mDg;gg;gl;l fbjk; vf;]gpl;.gp.10;. mjd; gpwF &.15000 b.b. ek;gh; 43441;5 %yk; mDg;gpAs;shh;fs;. mjw;fhd fbjk; gp.11. mjw;F gpwF b.b.ek;gh; 434450 %yk; &.10000 gpujpthjp epWtdk; mDg;gp cs;shh;fs;. mjw;fhd fbjk; gp.12. b.b.ek;gh; 350304 gb &.175000k; gpujpthjpahy; mDg;ggl;Ls;sJ. mJ mDg;gpajw;fhd fbjk; vf;];gpl.;gp.14. b.b.814435 gb &.6000 gpujpthjp epWtdj;jhy; mDg;ggl;Ls;sJ. mjw;fhd fbjk; vf;];gpl;..gp.15. b.b.814541 %yk; &.10000 gpujpthjp epWtdj;jhy; mDg;gl;Ls;sJ. mjw;fhd fbjk; vf;];gpl;.gp.16. b.b.ek;gh; 815695d;gb &.5000 gpujpthjp epWtdj;jhy; mDg;gl;Ls;sJ. mjw;fhd fbjk; gp.17. vf;];gpl;.gp.10y; ,Ue;J. gp.17 tiu cs;s fbjq;fspy; vd;dndd;d nkl;bhpay;]; mDg;g Ntz;Lk; vd Fwpg;gpl;L nrhy;yg;gl;Ls;sJ. me;j nghUl;fis vf;];gpl;.v1 Kjy; 12 tiu cs;s ,d;tha;]; %yk; ehq;fs; mDg;gp cs;Nshk;.”
29.Of course, the said evidence, independently, would make it appear that P.W.2 has admitted the receipt of amounts. But, unfortunately, for the defendant, the plaintiff has produced ledger accounts for the relevant period which would show that all the amounts have been given credit to and even after such credits to being given there is a debit balance in the accounts of the defendant with the plaintiff. I am therefore of the considered opinion that the said evidence cannot be read in isolation and it has to be read along with the other documentary evidence that is available on record.
http://www.judis.nic.in 18
30.The fact that Ex.A.51 letter dated 01.11.1999, was signed by the defendant is not denied. The only plea taken is that Ex.A.51 relates to some other transaction. I am able to agree with the contention of the learned counsel as well as the conclusion of the Courts below on Ex.A.51.
The Courts below have rejected, Ex.A.51 by referring to the evidence of D.W.1 which is not supported by pleadings. D.W.1 even in his chief examination has not stated that the defendant was functioning as an agent of the plaintiff and facilitating supply of goods of the plaintiff to others. In fact in his chief examination D.W.1 has admitted that the plaintiff had supplied the diamond powders to the defendant. The relevant portion of chief examination of D.W.1 reads as follows:-
“thjp epWtdk; nrhy;fpd;w fk;ngdpfSf;F vq;fs; %ykhf ilikd; ^y;]; mDg;gnrhd;dhh;fs;. mjw;F Njitahd ilikd; ^y;]; gTlh;fis thjp epWtdk; vq;fSf;F rg;is nra;jhh;fs;. Njitahd ilikd; gTlh;fSf;F fbjk; vOjp mjid thjp epWtdj;jpw;F mDg;gp itg;Nghk;. mjw;F Njitg;gLk; gzj;jpid KjypNy ml;thd;]; b.b. %yk; gjpT jghypy; mDg;gp itg;ghh;fs;. me;j b.b gw;wpa tptuq;fs; mjDld; ,izf;fg;gLk;; fbjj;jpy; nrhy;yg;gl;bUf;Fk;. mjw;fhf thjp epWtdj;jpy; ,Ue;J ml;thd;]; hprpg;l; mDg;Gthh;fs;. thjp epWtdj;jpy; ,Ue;J nghUl;fis flDf;F mDg;gpajhf ,d;tha;]; jhf;fy; nra;Js;shu;. me;j khjphp flDf;F ehq;fs; nghUl;fs; thq;ftpy;iy.” http://www.judis.nic.in 19
31.A reading of the above evidence would show that the witness viz., D.W.1 has specifically admitted the purchase of goods from the plaintiff. Therefore, the conclusion of the Courts below that Ex.A.51 does not relate to the suit transaction is perverse and it amounts to mis-
reading of the document.
32.In view of the above, I conclude that the plaintiff has established that it had supplied goods to the defendant and the defendant is liable to pay the suit claim. In view of the above discussion, the substantial questions of law 2 to 6 are answered in favour of the plaintiff / appellant and against the respondent / defendant.
33.The plaintiff has claimed overdue interest at 24% per annum. Admittedly, there is no agreement to pay the overdue interest. Therefore, the plaintiff will not be entitled to any overdue interest. From the ledgers accounts produced by the plaintiff, it is seen that the defendant has been making payment which was adjusted towards the earlier invoices. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff for overdue interest cannot be allowed.
http://www.judis.nic.in 20
34.In the result, the Second appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the Courts below are set aside and there will be decree for payment of the suit claim to the tune of Rs.1,95,524/- with 12% interest from the date of suit till the date of decree of the trial Court and thereafter at 6% interest per annum till the date of payment with proportionate costs through out.
28.11.2018
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
tsg
To
1.The Principle District Court, Madurai.
2.The 1st Additional Sub-Judge, Madurai.
3.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in 21 R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
tsg S.A.(MD).No.98 of 2007 28.11.2018 http://www.judis.nic.in