TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 1395
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iffs are engaged in the business of trading in iron & steel and other metals and allied products. The defendants are in the business of construction. The plaintiffs, based on the request and orders placed by the defendants supplied TMT steel bars to the defendants by purchasing the same from various Rolling Mills. As and when the defendants' requisition, the plaintiffs will instruct the transporters to send their vehicles directly to the Rolling Mills from where the TMT bars would be collected by the transporters and directly delivered at the defendants' designated address. On arrival of the vehicles, the defendants' authorized persons would confirm the receipt of material supplied to them by weighing the same on their own weigh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....econciliation statement for the period 1.12.2012 to 26.12.2012 in which the defendants in their books show a credit balance of Rs. 9,75,88,621 as payable to the plaintiffs. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants, therefore, have admitted their liability to pay Rs. 9,75,88,621/which the plaintiffs are entitled to as and by way of a summary decree together with interest calculated as 30% p.a. as agreed between the parties amounting to Rs. 14,89,80,182/with further interest @ 18% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs. 9,75,88,621/. 5 The defence raised in the affidavit in reply are :( a) The plaintiffs have no cause of action as required for filing summary suit. It is not stated anywhere as to why the plaintiffs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....10 of the reply it is stated that there was no agreement to pay any interest, in paragraph14 of the reply it is stated that the amount of rate of interest mentioned in the invoices was never to be acted upon and in any event the rate of interest was illegal and invalid as the same was interrorem and therefore, null and void. Again no explanation, when the invoices do provide interest at 30% p.a. is payable on unpaid dues. 7 On the defence of suppression of letter dated 1.2.2013 raised by the plaintiffs, undoubtedly, where a party has suppressed a material fact certainly the Court can refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction but provided the suppression is of a material fact. In my view, there has not been suppression of any mate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,12,035/. 9 It is necessary to mention that the materials were supplied between 8.4.2012 and 12.8.2012. On 17.11.2012 the defendants wrote to the plaintiffs confirming that as per the defendants' book a sum of Rs. 9,75,88,621/was due and payable to the plaintiffs. 21 consignments were sent between 8.4.2012 and 24.4.2012. 19 consignments were sent between 8.5.2012 and 27.5.2012. 17 consignments were sent between 1.7.2012 and 11.7.2012 and 18 consignments were sent between 6.8.2012 and 12.8.2012. Thereafter, the defendants confirmed on 7.11.2012 about the outstanding to the plaintiffs. Therefore, after the April consignments were sent, the defendants had six months, after Mayfive months, after July-three months and after August-almost ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssible, the counsel for the defendants relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Arunima Baruah Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2007) 6 Supreme Court Cases 120. In paragraph18 it is mentioned that the Court would not ordinarily permit the party to pursue two parallel remedies in respect of the same subject matter. That judgment however, is not applicable at all to the present facts because that matter was where the Court was dealing with the primary issue as to how far and to what extent suppression of fact by way of non disclosure would affect a person's right to access justice. In fact, the Apex court in the matter of Mediquip Systems (P) Ltd. Vs. Proxima Medical System GMBH (2005) 7 Supreme Court Cases 42 approved th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3 crore was lying unutilized and the plaintiffs had agreed to take it back. The defendants don't even mention where these goods are and how they valued it out Rs. 3 crores (approximately). In the circumstances, the defence raised by the defendants in my view, are bogus, illusionary and moonshine. Though the defendants are not entitled to defend, as a gesture of grace, subject to the defendants depositing the said amount with the Prothonotary & Senior Master, High Court, Bombay within four weeks from today and as condition precedent, the defendants be permitted to defend. 14 On the issue of interest, the invoices raised does provide interest @ 30% p.a. and therefore, the defendants are also entitled to the contractual rate of interest....