Court orders defendants to pay principal amount + 30% interest. Dismisses defenses, allows civil suit + company petition.

The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering the defendants to pay the principal amount along with the contractual interest rate of 30% per annum. The defendants' defenses were deemed lacking credibility, with the court dismissing their objections as attempts to avoid payment rather than genuine disputes. The court allowed simultaneous pursuit of civil suit and company petition, emphasizing the distinct purposes of both remedies. Non-compliance could result in an exparte decree, underscoring the importance of meeting payment obligations as per contractual terms.

---

---

Issues:
Plaintiffs' claim based on contracts evidenced by 75 invoices, non-payment by defendants, defense raised by defendants, suppression of facts, parallel proceedings, interest rate dispute.

Analysis:
1. The plaintiffs filed a suit based on 75 invoices for the supply of TMT steel bars to the defendants between April and August 2012. The total amount claimed was Rs. 98,509,610. The defendants partially paid Rs. 7,57,253 but failed to pay the remaining amount. The plaintiffs demanded payment through an advocate's notice, asserting a total due amount of Rs. 9,75,88,621 plus interest at 30% p.a. The defendants disputed the claim, raising various defenses.

2. The defendants' defenses included the absence of cause of action, issues with the quality of supplied goods, discrepancies in documents, and the contention that two parallel proceedings cannot be maintained. The defendants also disputed the interest rate of 30% p.a. claimed by the plaintiffs, arguing it was invalid. However, the court found the defendants' defenses lacking in substance and credibility.

3. The defendants alleged suppression of facts by the plaintiffs regarding a letter stating the quality issues with the supplied goods. The court examined the contents of the letter and found that the defendants had admitted a substantial amount was due for payment. The court concluded that the defendants' objections seemed like an afterthought to avoid payment rather than genuine disputes.

4. Regarding the claim of parallel proceedings, the court distinguished the present case from the cited judgment and allowed the simultaneous pursuit of civil suit and company petition. The court emphasized that both remedies serve different purposes and can proceed concurrently.

5. The court addressed the interest rate dispute, noting that the invoices clearly stated the interest rate of 30% p.a. The court upheld the contractual interest rate and ordered the defendants to pay the principal amount with interest. The court directed the defendants to deposit a specified amount within a set timeframe and allowed them to file a written statement upon compliance.

6. In conclusion, the court decreed in favor of the plaintiffs for the principal amount with interest, dismissed the defendants' defenses as unsubstantiated, and set out further directions for compliance and potential exparte decree in case of non-compliance. The judgment highlighted the importance of honoring contractual terms and the consequences of failing to meet payment obligations.

---