Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Therefore, the petitioner has claimed and is entitled for an amount of `1,66,19,726/- as late payment charges till 31.1.2012.

3.2 It is stated that the respondent issued various cheques for an amount aggregating to `97,56,145/- in discharge of its liabilities, however, the said cheques were dishonoured. The petitioner, by separate notices dated 27.02.2012 under section 138 of the NI Act, demanded amounts of `20,08,692/-, `27,47,607/-, `28,45,540/- and `21,54,306/- on account of the dishonour of the cheques for the respective amounts. The respondent replied to the said notices, by its separate replies dated 20.03.2012 and raised the issue of inferior quality of goods being supplied by the petitioner and non-adjustment of debit notes for an amount aggregating to `20,20,431/- (`5,31,259/- dated 09.09.2011, `8,31,814/- dated 04.02.2012 and `6,57,358/- dated 18.12.2011). It is submitted by the petitioner that, as the respondent failed to pay the said amounts within the time specified in the notices, the petitioner initiated proceedings under section 138 of the NI Act and filed Criminal Complaints being Complaint No.190/1 (with respect to the notice for `20,08,692/-), Complaint No.194/1 (with respect to the notice for `27,47,607/-), Complaint No.195/1 (with respect to the notice for `28,45,540/-) and Complaint No.196/1 (with respect to the notice for `21,54,306/-).

13. In the present case, it is not disputed that the materials were supplied by the petitioners to the respondent. In Co. Pet. No.373/2012, the petitioner has raised a claim for an amount of `1,03,18,917/- and in Co. Pet. No.375/2012, the petitioner has claimed an amount of `1,18,11,927/- towards the supplies made to the respondent. The respondent, however, disputes the claim of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners supplied inferior quality material due to which the respondent alleged that it had suffered huge losses which the petitioners were liable to make good. It is pertinent to note that the dispute with regard to inferior quality of the goods supplied by the petitioner was raised by the respondent in its reply to the notice issued under Section 138 of the NI Act and the respondent had also raised debit notes on that account. Therefore, the dispute existed even before issuance of the statutory notice under Section 434(1)(a) of the Act and filing of the present petitions. The respondent by its similar replies dated 20.03.2012, 30.03.2012 and 30.04.2012 replied to various notices issued by the petitioner under Section 138 of the NI Act and the relevant extract of the reply dated 20.03.2012 is extracted hereinbelow:-

"That your clients representative also ensured my client to be supplied with the good quality of only ESSAR STEEL STOCK but during the period of dealings, my client noticed that your client started supplying the inferior quality of material belonging to STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA, which resulted rejection of the manufactured stocks at the initial manufacturing level. Further the customers of my clients also rejected the final products supplied to them due to poor quality of raw material (Steel). By this way my clients were put to financial loss, as well as loss to their reputation and good will, besides mental tension, due to the fault of inferior stocks supplied by your clients. My clients raised their objections to such defective supplies to your clients and besides replacement of the inferior stocks they also raised debit notes to your client worth more than Rs. 20,00,000/- and the copies of such debit notes were handed over to the representative of your clients, on their refusal to acknowledged the same, my clients were compelled to dispatch the same by speed post on 09/02/2012 to your clients.

That after the supply of the inferior quality of stocks and having received the Debit Notes your clients have refused to adjust the said debits and have been insisting, and pressurizing my clients to make the entire payments, without adjusting the debit notes and, have further been pressurizing my client to make payment of further Interest @4%, though there has been no such agreement or understanding for the delayed payment between my clients and the said representative of your client SH. DEVI DAYAL GARG."