TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (12) TMI 818
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dered 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 on the value of the invoice; that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t other invoices for a total sum of ₹ 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 ₹ 18,56,527.33 (₹ 13,51,856/- for which cheques were issued + ₹ 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 ₹ 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 ₹ 25,28,847/-. The plaintiff also claimed pendente lite and future interest. 3. Even though, the evidence aforesaid of the plaintiff remains unrebutted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is of the cheques signed by 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 27.12.2001 26,380 8. 252048 29.12.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 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. 205574 04.12.2001 58794.66 8. 205623 06.12.2001 14519.34 9. 205634 07.12.2001 11739 10. 205648 07.12.2001 60519 11. 205682 08.12.2001 29979 12. 205736 11.12.2001 45010 13. 205753 12.12.2001 30150.73 14. 205754 12.12.2001 17379 15. 255257 21.11.200,1 2058.60 6. As far as the limitation qua the amount for which cheques were issued, the limitation prescribed in Article 14 of Schedule....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nvoices-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 ₹ 5,04,671.33/- as reproduced herein above would show that none of the invoices are within the period of three years prior to the institution of the suit. Thus, the claim for ₹ 5,04,671.33/- is barred by time. 9. As far as the claim for the price of invoices for which cheques aforesaid are stated to be issued, even though the date of invoices against which the cheques were issued may be of more than three years prior to the institution of the suit, issuance of the cheques for the same would give a fresh cause of action to the plaintiff. The next question wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....intiff 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 claim for interest at 12% per annum to be reasonable. The plaintiff is held entitled to pre- institution interest at 12% per annum from the date of each of the cheques, claim where for is found to be within time, till the institution of the suit. However, post institution of the suit, the record reveals that the plaintiff has been highly negligent in prosecuting the suit. The plaintiff failed to take steps for service of the defendants after the institution of the suit till....