TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court awards plaintiff Rs. 8,02,070 with interest rates; plaintiff also receives costs</h1> <h3>BPL Limited Versus Hindustan Traders Co. and Ors.</h3> The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff for Rs. 8,02,070/- with pre-institution interest at 12% per annum, pendente lite interest at 6% per ... - Issues Involved:1. Recovery of Rs. 25,28,847/- with interest.2. Limitation period for the suit.3. Liability of defendant No. 3 as an authorized signatory.4. Calculation of interest rate.Summary:Issue 1: Recovery of Rs. 25,28,847/- with interestThe plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 25,28,847/- from the defendants jointly and severally, with pendente lite and future interest. The defendants were proceeded ex-parte, and the plaintiff led ex-parte evidence through an affidavit and documents. The plaintiff, engaged in manufacturing and marketing electronic goods, supplied goods to the defendant No. 1, with defendant No. 2 as the sole proprietor and defendant No. 3 as the authorized signatory. The plaintiff claimed a total principal sum of Rs. 18,56,527.33 (Rs. 13,51,856/- for which cheques were issued + Rs. 5,04,671.33 for the balance amount for which cheques were not issued) and interest of Rs. 6,72,320.46 at 12% per annum, making the suit for recovery of Rs. 25,28,847/-.Issue 2: Limitation period for the suitThe court found that the entire claim of the plaintiff was not within the limitation period. U/s 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, a suit instituted after the prescribed period 'shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set-up as a defence.' The limitation for recovery of the price of goods sold and delivered is three years from the date of delivery. The suit was instituted on 12th January 2005, and none of the invoices for Rs. 5,04,671.33 were within the three-year period, making this claim barred by time. However, the issuance of cheques gave a fresh cause of action, and only cheques dated within three years prior to the suit were considered, amounting to Rs. 8,02,070/-.Issue 3: Liability of defendant No. 3 as an authorized signatoryU/s 28 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, an agent who signs a cheque without indicating that he signs as an agent is personally liable. Defendant No. 3, having signed the cheques as an authorized signatory without disclosing that he did not intend to incur personal liability, was held liable for the amount due on the cheques.Issue 4: Calculation of interest rateThe plaintiff claimed interest at 24% per annum but only pleaded for 12% per annum in the suit. The court found the claim for interest at 12% per annum reasonable for pre-institution interest from the date of each cheque within time until the suit's institution. However, due to the plaintiff's negligence in prosecuting the suit, the court awarded pendente lite interest at 6% per annum. For future interest, the court awarded 6% per annum from the decree date for 90 days, after which the defendants would be liable for interest at 18% per annum for any delay in payment.Conclusion:The court decreed the suit for Rs. 8,02,070/- with pre-institution interest at 12% per annum, pendente lite interest at 6% per annum, and future interest at 6% per annum for 90 days, increasing to 18% per annum for delays beyond 90 days. The plaintiff was also entitled to proportionate costs of the suit.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
