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 rules in favor of plaintiff Mahou India Private Limited in recovery case against defendant Aradhna Wines.</h1> <h3>M/s Mahou India Private Limited Versus M/s Aradhna Wines</h3> M/s Mahou India Private Limited Versus M/s Aradhna Wines - TMI Issues Involved:1. Recovery of outstanding amount.2. Validity and enforcement of cheques issued.3. Ex-parte proceedings against the defendant.4. Establishment of written contract.5. Entitlement to interest on the outstanding amount.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Recovery of Outstanding Amount:The plaintiff, M/s Mahou India Private Limited, filed a suit under Order 37 CPC to recover Rs. 3,09,59,430/- from the defendant, M/s Aradhna Wines. The plaintiff supplied beer products to the defendant, who made irregular payments without specifying the invoices being paid. The plaintiff maintained a running account, crediting payments on a first-in-first-out basis. By June 2016, the defendant owed Rs. 3,09,59,430/- for various supplies, including transportation charges.2. Validity and Enforcement of Cheques Issued:The defendant issued five cheques totaling Rs. 50 lacs as part payment, which were dishonored due to insufficient funds. The plaintiff issued a legal notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, but received no response or payment. The court noted that a summary suit based on a 'Bill of Exchange' (including cheques) is maintainable under Order 37 CPC. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for Rs. 50 lacs against the cheques was deemed valid but was part of the total outstanding amount.3. Ex-parte Proceedings Against the Defendant:The defendant was served notices through various modes, including publication and affixation, but failed to appear. Consequently, the court proceeded ex-parte. The court ensured compliance with Order 37 Rule 3(1) CPC by serving notices along with the plaint and documents.4. Establishment of Written Contract:The plaintiff substantiated its claim with documents, including excise passes, import permits, invoices, GRs, and ledger records. The court agreed that the import permits and corresponding invoices constituted a complete written contract. The import permits, issued by the Excise and Taxation Department, detailed the licensee (defendant) and the supplier (plaintiff), creating a binding contract upon acceptance and supply of goods. The court emphasized that a contract need not be in a single document and can be established through a series of documents evidencing offer and acceptance.5. Entitlement to Interest on the Outstanding Amount:The court recognized that the withheld payment impacted the plaintiff's business operations. Therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to interest at 12% per annum on the outstanding amount from the date the liability arose until full realization.Conclusion:The court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, awarding Rs. 3,09,59,430/- along with 12% per annum interest from the date of liability until full payment. The suit was decreed with costs, and all pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.
TaxTMI 