Dr. Chandrachud, J.

This appeal arises from the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge dated 5 February 2009 by which a summary suit instituted under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.) has been decreed as prayed.

2. The respondent instituted a suit on the Original Side of this Court on 17 July 1998 against the appellant for the recovery of an amount of Rs.38,73,530.43 together with interest on the principal amount of Rs.25,23,360.00 at the rate of 30% per annum from the date of the institution of the suit till decree and thereafter until payment or realization. The case of the respondent is that on 24 September 1996, the appellant sought a quotation for the supply of M.S. Flanges and Bolt-Nuts. The respondent allegedly furnished its quotation on 27 September 1996. According to the respondent, the appellant accepted the quotation by placing an order on 28 September 1996. The respondent claims to have supplied the material on 5 October 1996 and avers that the invoice was accepted by the appellant by acknowledging the receipt. The respondent issued a notice of demand on 29 June 1998 and thereafter instituted a suit. The decree sought was in the amount of Rs.38,73,530.43 which was inclusive of interest at the rate of 30% per annum on the principal sum of Rs.25,23,360/- as set out in the statement of claim, Exh.F to the plaint. Future interest is claimed also at the same rate of 30% per annum.

3. A summons for judgment was taken out in the suit under the provisions of Order 37 of the C.P.C. On 11 August 2003, unconditional leave to defend the suit was granted to the appellant and a written statement was directed to be filed within a period of eight weeks. The written statement was not filed. On 5 February 2009 the suit came up before a learned Single Judge when the advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant was present. The learned Single Judge noted that the original documents were produced and though the appellant had knowledge of the order passed on the summons for judgment and of the previous orders of the court no written statement has been filed. The learned Single Judge on this basis observed as follows:

“5. The averments in the Plaint are left uncontroverted. The Suit is decreed as prayed. The original documents are taken on record and marked Exhibit-A (collectively).

6. Refund as per Rules.”

4. The appellant took out a notice of motion for setting aside the decree under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. The motion was dismissed on 22 November 2010. There was a delay of 76 days in filing an appeal. The Division Bench of this Court on 4 October 2011 declined the application for condonation of delay observing that no written statement was filed within the time stipulated; no application for extension of time was made before the learned Single Judge and hence no useful purpose would be served by condoning the delay.

5. The appellant has filed a substantive appeal against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 5 February 2009. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned by an order of the Division Bench dated 4 April 2012.

6. The admitted facts are that unconditional leave had been granted to the appellant to defend the suit under Order 37. No written statement has been filed. The appellant was ordered to be wound up on 18 March 2010 after the decree was passed by the learned Single Judge and the Official Liquidator has, with the leave of the Company Court, filed this appeal. The law on the subject is clear. Even if the written statement is not filed and the case is proceeded with under Order 8 Rule 10 of the CPC, the Court is duty bound to write a judgment in conformity with the provisions of the Code or at least to set out the reasons by which the controversy is resolved.

7. In Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan, (AIR 1999 SC 3381) the Supreme Court observed as follows:

“(27) In view of the above, it is clear that the court, at no stage, can act blindly or mechanically. W