Court modifies order on deposit, interest rates; emphasizes foreign law in commercial contracts.

The court upheld the order granting the appellant leave to defend the suit upon depositing a specified amount. The appellant, who had received goods but only partially paid, raised defenses on interest rates, promissory notes, and governing law. The court modified the order, adjusted interest rates, and clarified the status of promissory notes as collateral security. Addressing the applicability of foreign law, the court emphasized proving differences from Indian law. Upholding the original order with adjustments, the judgment stressed contractual compliance and the relevance of foreign law in commercial dealings.

---

---

Issues:
1. Granting leave to defend the suit subject to depositing a specific amount.
2. Dispute over payment for goods supplied.
3. Defences raised regarding interest rates, promissory notes, and governing law.
4. Applicability of foreign law in the case.

Analysis:
1. The judgment involves an appeal against an order granting the appellant leave to defend a suit subject to depositing a specified amount equivalent to Euros 11,37,866.30 within a stipulated time frame. The appellant had received goods from the respondent but had only partially paid the amount claimed in the suit.

2. The respondent supplied goods to the appellant as per the terms of the agreement. The appellant acknowledged receiving the goods but failed to pay the full amount claimed in the suit. The court acknowledged that the appellant had little merit in its defense on the grounds of non-payment.

3. The appellant raised defenses related to interest rates, promissory notes, and the governing law. The court modified the order to specify the consequences of non-depositing the amount and adjusted the interest rate to 4% per annum. The court also addressed concerns regarding promissory notes issued by the appellant, clarifying that they were collateral security and did not extinguish the original cause of action.

4. The issue of foreign law arose as the invoices stated that the legal relationship between the parties would be governed by the substantive laws of the Federal Republic of Germany. The court emphasized that foreign law is a question of fact and noted the presumption that the general law of a foreign country is the same as Indian law unless proven otherwise.

In conclusion, the court upheld the original order with modifications regarding interest rates and extended the time for depositing the amount. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to contractual obligations and the applicability of foreign law in commercial transactions.

---