Court finds invoices form binding contract under Order XXXVII Rule 2, rejects defective goods claim, upholds interest, dismisses defense.

The court concluded that invoices fall within the ambit of Order XXXVII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, constituting a complete contract for the sale of goods. The defendant's claim of defective goods was rejected due to an unreasonable delay in raising the issue. The authorization of Dr. Cosima Paul to sign pleadings was not pursued by the defendant. The court upheld the plaintiff's claim for interest at 18% per annum. The defendant's application for leave to defend was dismissed, and the plaintiff was awarded the requested sum, interest, and costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Order XXXVII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure to invoices.
2. Allegation of defective and sub-standard goods supplied.
3. Authorization of Dr. Cosima Paul to sign and verify pleadings on behalf of the defendant.
4. Claim of interest at 18% per annum on the amount due.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Order XXXVII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure to Invoices:
The defendant argued that an invoice does not fall within the ambit of Order XXXVII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court noted that invoices/bills are considered "written contracts" within the contemplation of Order XXXVII Rule 2. The court referenced multiple decisions, including M/s Punjab Pen House v. Samrat Bicycles Limited and Corporate Voice Private Limited v. Uniroll Leather India Limited, to support this position. The court concluded that the invoices in question, which contained the description, quantity, price, and payment conditions, constituted a complete contract required by law for the sale of goods. Therefore, the suit was maintainable under Order XXXVII Rule 1 as a summary suit.

2. Allegation of Defective and Sub-standard Goods Supplied:
The defendant claimed that the goods received under the two invoices were defective and sub-standard, asserting that the plaintiff was required to take back the goods, which were still lying with the defendant. The court highlighted the statutory provisions under Sections 41 and 42 of the Sale of Goods Act. Section 41 mandates that the buyer has a reasonable opportunity to examine the goods upon delivery, and Section 42 stipulates that the buyer is deemed to have accepted the goods if they are not rejected within a reasonable time. The court found that the defendant received the goods in May 2000 and September 2000 but did not indicate any defects until December 2001, which was deemed an unreasonable delay. Thus, the defendant was considered to have accepted the goods, and the defense of defective goods was rejected.

3. Authorization of Dr. Cosima Paul to Sign and Verify Pleadings:
The defendant initially raised a plea regarding the authorization of Dr. Cosima Paul to sign and verify the pleadings on behalf of the defendant. However, this plea was not pressed by the defendant's counsel during arguments, and therefore, it was not considered further by the court.

4. Claim of Interest at 18% per Annum on the Amount Due:
The plaintiff claimed interest at 18% per annum on the amount due, although the invoices only stipulated that interest would be charged on late payments without specifying the rate. The court noted that the defendant did not contest the rate of interest claimed by the plaintiff while seeking leave to defend. Consequently, the court upheld the plaintiff's claim for interest at 18% per annum.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the defendant's application for leave to defend (IA No. 5607/2004), finding no friable issue that warranted a trial. The suit was decreed as prayed for, awarding the plaintiff the sum of EURO 56572 together with interest at 18% per annum and costs.

---