TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (12) TMI 630
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te of 22 per cent per annum on the unpaid purchase. The defendant issued cheques against the purchases but most of these cheques were dishonoured. The plaintiff has placed about 26 cheques on record which were given to him by the defendant and on presentation, all these cheques were dishonoured. The defendant had reconciled his account of purchases made and confirmed the debit balance. It is further alleged in the plaint that the defendant vide letter dated 8.8.1992 regretted or his failure to keep his commitmentregarding the repayments on account of his financial condition. 2. The defendant has issued cheques to the plaintiff to clear entire outstanding amount. The defendant had also signed a promissory note on 8.8.1992. In the said promi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plaintiff was compelled to file a suit under Order xxxvII of the Code of civil Procedure against the defendant. 6. The suit was registered on 15.9.1993. The defendant had filed a leave to defend application (I.A. No. 138/94). In the application, it was stated that the suit under Order xxxvII CPC is not maintainable. It is not denied that the goods were purchased on credit by the defendant from the plaintiff. It is also mentioned that it was agreed to pay interest at the rate of only 18 per cent on the terms and conditions agreed and not on unpaid purchase, as alleged, in the affidavit. The defendant had agreed that the letter dated 8.8.1992 was drafted and got typed by the plaintiff and the defendant had signed it alongwith the promisory n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uently liable to be rejected. The plaintiff specifically denied that the defendant had paid to the plaintiff company ₹ 5 lakhs or any amount in cash. According to the plaintiff this allegation of the defendant is entirely baseless and without any foundation. It is mentioned that in pursuance to the agreement dated 15.8.1992, executed between the plaintiff and the defendant post dated cheques were issued by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff in terms of the agreement. The amount which was received by the plaintiff for the months of August and September, 1992 of ₹ 24,607/- and ₹ 20,000/- were duly credited by the plaintiff in the statement of accounts. No other amount had been received by the plaintiff from the defenda....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....neers & Manufacturers Vs. M/s. Basic Equipment Corporation; . Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have laid down that the following principles should be kept in view while considering the question of grating or refusing the leave to defend: "a) If the defendant satisfies the Court that he has a good defense to the claim on its merits the plaintiff is not entitled to leave to sign judgment and the defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend. b) If the defendant raises a triable issue indicating that he has a fair or bona fide or reasonable defense although not a positively good defense the plaintiff is not entitled to unconditional leave to defend. d) If the defendant disclose such facts as may be deemed sufficient to ent....