2020 (1) TMI 1732

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... a) the appellant herein raised a purchase order bearing No. SUNPRO/CSASC/1209012 dated 12.09.2012 for 3DS Max Design 2013 or Higher SLM, 2 User for Design and display division, 2 User for Architecture Division, and, Auto Cad 3D 2013 (SLM), 2 User for Design and Display Division, 4 User for Architecture Division. In lieu of the purchase order the appellant had issued two cheques viz. bearing no. 154188 dated 14.09.2012 in the sum of Rs. 4,45,000/- and cheque bearing no. 154189 dated 29.10.2012 in the sum of Rs. 13,35,000/- to respondent No. 2. The items were supplied by the respondent No. 2 as per the purchase order and were successfully installed. The software installation reports dated 24.09.2012 and 29.09.2012 as also the training report....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....objection of defendant is unfounded because plaintiff no. 2, the other party to the contract with defendant, is admitting about assignment and has filed documents to this effect. Assignment of rights of plaintiff no. 2 in favour of plaintiff no. 1 is not an issue in dispute in this suit and does not bring it out of the purview of Order XXXVII CPC. 19. Defendant has averred that it had released payment of Rs. 5,42,900/- to the plaintiff in April, 2013 on promise that the plaintiff no. 2 shall rectify all the problems. Reply obtained under RTI reveals that defendant had received full payment from ITPO in April, 2013 thereby suggesting that entire work was complete qua the end consumer in that month. If that is so, where was the quest....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d into between the parties therein and under the said agreement, bills raised by defendant No. 1 were discounted by the plaintiff by granting defendant No. 1 the financial facility. After exhausting the final limit, yet an amount of Rs. 10.00 Crore approx was due and the Court was of the opinion, since the suit was based upon the statement of account, hence was not maintainable under Order XXXVII CPC. However, in para No. 18 of the cited judgment, this Court rather distinguished the facts of the cited case from the case of Bijender Chauhan @ Bijender Kumar V. Financial Eyes (India) Ltd. 2013 (4) ILR (Del) 3234 and held Bjinder's (supra) was essentially based upon an amount claimed on invoices, which were held to be a written contract an....