TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner-company had supplied goods to the respondent and was entitled to recover Rs. 2,476.02. (ii) Whether the petitioner-company was entitled to interest on the unpaid price, and if so at what rate.
Issue (i): Whether the petitioner-company had supplied goods to the respondent and was entitled to recover Rs. 2,476.02.
Analysis: The ledger entry was proved through the director of the company, who stated that the books were maintained in the ordinary course of business and that no payment had been received before winding up. The respondent led no evidence despite opportunities, and the documentary evidence showed the outstanding balance due from it.
Conclusion: The petitioner-company was entitled to recover Rs. 2,476.02 from the respondent.
Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner-company was entitled to interest on the unpaid price, and if so at what rate.
Analysis: Interest on the unpaid price was treated as a statutory liability under section 61(2) of the Sale of Goods Act. In the circumstances, the court awarded interest at 9% per annum from the date the decretal amount became due until realization.
Conclusion: The petitioner-company was entitled to interest at 9% per annum till realization.
Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded and a money decree was passed for the principal amount with interest, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the seller proves an unpaid price through regular account books and the buyer adduces no rebuttal evidence, the court may decree recovery of the debt and award interest as a statutory incident of the unpaid price.
TaxTMI 
