Delhi High Court
Flex Industries Ltd. vs Uttam Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. on 10 September, 2004
Equivalent citations: AIR2005DELHI101, 114(2004)DLT160, 2004(76)DRJ572, AIR 2005 DELHI 101, (2005) 3 BANKCLR 284, (2004) 76 DRJ 572, (2004) 114 DLT 160
Author: R.C. Jain
Bench: R.C. Jain
JUDGMENT R.C. Jain, J.
1. The above-named plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 36,75,500/- against the defendant with the averments and allegations that it is a limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and Mrs. Banmala Jha, Legal Officer of the plaintiff and also a general power of attorney holder is authorised to sign and verify the plaint and institute the suit. Plaintiff company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and dealing in various kinds of laminates of polyester type and based printed material for packaging, glassine, paper, board etc. The defendant company placed orders upon the plaintiff for supplying the packaging material required by them from time to time and the plaintiff company had been supplying the same to the defendant as per its orders. It is alleged that the defendant failed to pay the full value of the bills in respect of which the defendant had accepted the material. According to the plaintiff, a sum of Rs. 20,64,888/- had become due and payable by the defendant as the balance price of the packing material supplied by the plaintiff and they had issued various cheques to discharge that liability, but the cheques could not be encashed. The defendant stated to have admitted its liability to pay the dues of the plaintiff. It is stated that as per the commercial practice of trade and business the defendant is not liable to pay interest @24% per annum on the said principal amount and a sum of Rs. 16,10,612/- has become due and payable by the defendant towards interest on the principal amount, which the defendant has failed to pay despite demands and notice. Hence, the suit.
2. Vide an order dated 17.5.2001 the defendant was proceeded with against ex parte on its failure to put in appearance despite service.
3. The plaintiff led its evidence by way of affidavit of Mrs. Banmala Jha, attorney holder of the plaintiff company. The said witness in her deposition in the affidavit has fully substantiated the averments and allegations made in the plaint and has exhibited various documents. Ex.P1 and P2 are the photocopies of the Board of Resolution and Power of Attorney dated 10.4.2000. Ex.P3 to P6 are the supply orders received from the defendant. Ex.P7 to P33 are the copies of invoices in regard to the supply of the material to the defendant. Ex.P34 to P37 are the defendant's letters dated 14.10.1997 and 26.5.1998 issued by the defendant to the plaintiff thereby confirming and admitting its liability to pay the dues of the plaintiff. Ex. P39 is also a letter of the defendant promising to make the payment of the balance amount. Ex.P40 to P48 are the cheques issued by the defendant in various sums of money and Ex.P48 to P48A are the bank memos returning those cheques as unpaid on the ground of the cheuqes exceeding the arrangements of the creditor.
4. The evidence led by the plaintiff has gone unchallenged and unrebutted on record and, therefore, the same deserves to be accepted and relied upon on its face value. The overwhelming documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff duly establish that the defendant had received the material worth Rs. 20,64,888/-, which they failed to pay despite accepting their liability and promises. It is also brought out on record that during the relevant period the plaintiff was entitled to interest @24% as per the market usage and in commercial transactions. In the opinion of this Court the plaintiff has successfully established its claim in the suit.
5. In the result, plaintiff's suit is hereby decreed for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 36,75,500/- with pendente lite and future interest @9% per annum w.e.f. from the date of filing of the suit till realisation with the cost of the suit. Let a decree sheet be drawn accordingly.