2008 (12) TMI 818

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....arayanan. The witness has also tendered documents Exhibit P1/1, Exhibit P1/1A, Exhibit P1/2 - P1/61 and Exhibit P1/62 - Exhibit P1/64. 2. It is inter-alia in the case of the plaintiff and in evidence that the plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of electronic goods; that the defendant No. 1 of which the defendant No. 2 is the sole proprietor was the dealer of the plaintiff; that the plaintiff used to supply electronic goods to the defendant No. 1 and raised invoices on the defendant No. 1; that the defendant No. 1 was to pay the amount of the invoice on or before the due date; that it was however agreed by the defendants that if they fail to make the payments on time they will pay interest at 24% per annum ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ainst other invoices for a total sum of Rs. 5,04,671.33 were also made by the plaintiff to the defendants and for which no cheques were issued. The plaintiff, thus, claimed that 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) was due from the defendants to the plaintiff. The plaintiff besides the said amount claimed interest of Rs. 6,72,320.46 at 12% per annum on the outstandings, till the date of institution of the suit, making the suit for recovery of Rs. 25,28,847/-. The plaintiff also claimed pendente lite and future interest. 3. Even though, the evidence aforesaid of the plaintiff remains unrebutted by the defendants ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y the defendant No. 3 is concerned, the defendant No. 3 having signed as a cheque as authorized signatory and having not disclosed that he does not intend to incur personal liability, would be liable for the amount, if any, found due on the said cheques. 5. Coming back to the issue of limitation, the plaintiff has in the plaint set out a table of the cheques issued by the defendants and returned dishonoured to the plaintiff as under: Sr. No. Cheque No. Date Amount (Rs.) 1. 252010 20.12.2001 25,921 2. 252012 22.12.2001 37,721 3. 252024 24.12.2001 40,000 4. 252023 23.12.2001 36,931 5. 252033 26.12.2001 14,520 6. 252038 28.12.2001 42,500 7. 252037 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2.2002 46,439 12. 252751 30.01.2002 45,545 13. 252725 26.01.2002 35,158 14. 252723 25.01.2002 17,579 15. 252724 25.01.2002 26,369 16. 252730 28.01.2002 15,041 17. 586976 05.02.2002 15,041 The plaintiff has in the plaint also set out a table of the invoices for the other supplies made by the plaintiff to the defendants and against which no cheques even were issued, as under: Sr. No. Invoice No. Date Amount (Rs.) 1. 204808 16.11.2001 20434 2. 204901 19.11.2001 97158 3. 205114 24.11.2001 34730 4. 205334 29.11.2001 29600 5. 205438 30.11.2001 26220 6. 205560 03.12.2001 26380 7. 20....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o, there is no option but to hold that the case would fall in Article 14 (supra) and the period of three years would commence from the date of delivery of the goods. 7. Thus, as far as the claim for Rs. 5,04,671.33 is concerned and for which as aforesaid, the defendants No. 1&2 only and not defendant No. 3 are liable, it has to be seen as to how many of the invoices-cum-challans are of a date within three years prior to the institution of the suit. The documents proved being invoices-cum-challans, the date thereof has to be taken as the date of delivery. 8. The suit was instituted on 12th January, 2005. A perusal of the invoices for total sum of Rs. 5,04,671.33/- as reproduced herein above would show that none of the invoices are with....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 8,02,070/- is within time. The plaintiff would thus be entitled to a decree in the said amount only towards principal, the balance principal amount being barred by time. 10. The next question is of the rate of interest. The plaintiff has in the plaint pleaded the agreement for payment of interest at 24% per annum. However, the witness of the plaintiff has not deposed of interest at such rate at any time in the earlier transactions between the parties being paid. The plaintiff itself has claimed pre-institution interest @ 12% per annum only. The invoices-cum-challans of the plaintiff do not bear any provision for interest. However, transaction between the parties, even though, of sale of goods, being a commercial transaction, I find the ....