TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 772
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ollows:- The plaintiff company is a Limited Company incorporated under The Companies Act, 1956 and having its Registered Office at Dalmiapuram, Tiruchirapalli. It is engaged in cement manufacturing. The defendant is a customer to the plaintiff. The defendant used to purchase various grades of cement bags for its projects and construction work. In respect of goods purchased during the period from 12.06.2009 to 04.07.2009, a sum of Rs. 19,65,354/- is due towards the value of the goods. Apart from the payment of advance of Rs. 78,880/- , which was adjusted towards the value in respect of the sale dated 12.06.2009, no other payment was made by the defendant. 3. It is the further case of the plaintiff that with reference to the outstanding....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot comply with the demand. Hence this suit for recovery of suit amount together with interest @ 22% p.a. which is the agreed rate of interest as per the Invoices. 4. The defendant filed his written statement inter alia contending that the suit has been laid on account of enmity which the officers of the plaintiff had with the defendant when he was not compliant to the unreasonable dictates of the plaintiff's officers. It was the usual industrial practice for the plaintiff to retain undated cheques and blank letter heads of the purchasers for the security of the goods to be supplied to them. There was no due from the defendant, but, the plaintiff had misused the instruments lying with them and had foisted the case. The plaintiff did n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....laintiff has suppressed several material facts including payment received by them from the defendant. 7. The defendant further contended that without resolving the issue relating to the supply of sub standard goods, no liability could be fastened on the defendant. The plaintiff, in order to confer jurisdiction upon this court, have calculated the interest @ 22% p.a. thereby enhanced the value of the claim from Rs. 9,71,400/- to Rs. 19,65,354.57 paise for arriving the total claim of Rs. 35,21,941.57 paise and to avoid higher court fees. Therefore, the defendant prays for dismissal of the suit. 8. Based on the above pleadings, this court framed the following issues for trial:- (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the sui....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... admitted his liability and undertook to pay the same to the plaintiff on installments. Those letters are marked as Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5. The D.W.1, the defendant has in his cross examination specifically admitted the letter sent by him which were marked as Ex.P.4 and P.5 and the relevant portion of which reads as follows:- "I have not specifically denied the invoices in my written statement. Even in my proof affidavit and additional proof affidavit, I have not denied Ex.P.3 series invoices. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Ex.P.4 is the letter written by me addressed to the plaintiff. I have signed in the Ex.P.4 letter. In Ex.P.4 Letter I have undertaken to make payment of Rs. 21,43,600/- in two installment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... These issues are answered accordingly in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Issue No.3:- 14. Even though the defendant contended that the plaintiff had received a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- by way of demand draft dated 22.07.2009 as final settlement, there is no material to substantiate his contention. However, from a perusal of Ex.P.2 statement of account coupled with Ex.P.3-Invoice (series), it could be seen that the plaintiff had adjusted the said sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- paid by the defendant towards outstanding dues on 23.07.2009 itself and still there was an outstanding of Rs. 19,65354.57 paise as on that date. The defendant did not produce any other materials to substantiate his claim that he had settled the entire....