IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Abhay Ahuja, J.
Oriental Aromatics Limited - Plaintiff
Versus
Poonam D. Bhatiya - Defendant
Summons For Judgment No. 8 of 2022 In Summary Suit No. 7 of 2021
Decided On : 19-01-2024
Recovery of Dues - Written Contract - Order 37 of CPC - [JUDGMENT]
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed suit for recovery of dues from Defendant for goods sold and delivered along with interest and costs. Defendant admitted liability but raised dispute on quality and pricing of goods.
Finding of the Court:
Defendant's defense of inferior quality and disputed pricing was found to be baseless and frivolous. Defendant's admissions of liability disentitled her to leave to defend the suit. Plaintiff was entitled to judgment forthwith.
Issues: Dispute on quality and pricing of goods, admission of liability by Defendant, entitlement of Plaintiff to judgment forthwith.
Ratio Decidendi: In a suit based on invoices, the invoices must be treated as a written contract. If the Defendant raises no genuine triable issues or the defense is frivolous, the Plaintiff shall be entitled to judgment forthwith.
Final Decision: Summons for Judgment made absolute, suit decreed in favor of Plaintiff, subject to a credit of Rs. 2,10,000/- paid by Defendant. No order as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
1. The Plaintiff has filed the above suit for recovery of Rs. 1,68,80,866/- from the Defendant, comprising of Rs. 1,27,93,674/- being the principal amount along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the due date of each of the invoices raised by the Plaintiff in respect of the goods sold, supplied and delivered by the Plaintiff to the Defendant along with the delivery challans till the date of filing of the suit and thereafter, further interest on the principal sum at the same rate till payment and/or realisation and costs of the suit.
2. After the Defendant had entered appearance, Plaintiff had taken out Summons for Judgment in the above amount along with interest and costs. In the affidavit in support of the Summons for Judgment dated 11th February, 2022, the Plaintiff has submitted that after the filing of the suit, the Defendant has paid to the Plaintiff a sum of Rs. 2,10,000/- and accordingly, the Defendant is entitled to receive credit in the said sum of Rs. 2,10,000/- against its decretal dues as claimed in the Plaint. The reply has been filed by the Defendant on 5th March, 2022. Thereafter, attempts were made to settle the matter, however, upon failure of the same, this Summons for Judgment has been heard.
3. Mr. Mehta, learned Counsel appears for the Plaintiff and submits that affidavit in rejoinder on behalf of the Plaintiff has also been filed on 4th January, 2023.
4. The brief facts are that in the year 2019, pursuant to oral purchase orders that were placed by the Defendant on the Plaintiff from time to time for supply of diverse quantities and specifications of Isoborneol Powder and Camphor GF, the Plaintiff from time to time sold, supplied and delivered to the Defendant the said goods and raised invoices in respect whereof in an aggregate sum of Rs. 1,38,59,631/- as per the following details:-
| Sr.No. | Invoice No. | Date of the Invoice | Due Date of the Invoice | Amount of the Invoice (Rs.) |
| 1. | HO/INV/1920/00146 | 23.07.2019 | 21.09.2019 | 26,19,600/- |
| 2 | CBJ/1920/01676 | 25.07.2019 | 23.09.2019 | 11,28,375/- |
| 3 | CBJ/1920/01721 | 27.07.2019 | 25.09.2019 | 48,72,456/- |
| 4 | CBJ/1920/02148 | 23.08.2019 | 22.10.2019 | 26,19,600/- |
| 5 | CBJ/1920/02291 | 31.08.2019 | 30.10.2019 | 26,19,600/- |
|
|
|
|
| Rs.1,38,59,631/- |
5. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the said goods were duly received by the Defendant without any protest or demur and that at no point of time the Defendant raised any dispute as to the quantity or the quality of the said goods. The Plaintiff has also annexed the delivery challans in respect of the subject deliveries to the Plaint. It is submitted that each of the aforementioned invoices were as per their terms, due for payment in 60 days from the date of respective invoices. However, it is the Plaintiff’s case that none of the said invoices were paid on the due date. Even reminders to the Defendant were of no avail. After repeated requests during the period from February, 2020 to June, 2020, the Defendant made part payments to the Plaintiff aggregating to Rs. 10.50 lakhs. That earlier, the Defendant had also paid to the Plaintiff a sum of Rs. 25,545/- for which credit had remained to be given and after giving credit to the Defendant for all the payments made by the Defendant to the Plaintiff from time to time aggregating to Rs. 10,75,545/-, a principal sum of Rs. 1,27,84,086/- remained outstanding.
6. The Plaintiff was also required to pay on behalf of the Defendant an amount of Rs. 9,588/- into the government treasury, being the Tax Collected at Source. The Plaintiff accordingly, raised two debit notes in respect of the said amount, raising the principal to a sum of Rs. 1,27,93,674/-.
7. That since despite repeated requests and the Defendant’s repeated assurances, the Defendant failed to pay the outstanding dues, the Plaintiff through its Advocates issued a Demand Notice dated 12th May, 2021 calling upon the Defendant to make pay
AI
In a suit based on invoices, the invoices must be treated as a written contract. If the Defendant raises no genuine triable issues or the defense is frivolous, the Plaintiff shall be entitled to judg....
Summary suits based on invoices are maintainable when liability is acknowledged, and defenses presented must be genuine and substantial.
The burden of proof lies on the defendants to provide documentary evidence of full payment, and failure to do so may result in adverse inferences by the Court.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of written documents for maintaining a suit under Order XXXVII of the CPC and the principles governing the grant of leave to defend....
The burden of proof lies with the claimant to substantiate claims with credible documentation, and evidence of timely payments to claimants influence recovery judgments.
Court upheld the trial court's ruling on limitation and interest, emphasizing ongoing commercial transactions while invalidating the claim for hand loan.
The plaintiff failed to prove defects in goods supplied under the Reseller Agreement, resulting in dismissal of the suit and a decree for the defendant's counter-claim for unpaid invoices.
Invoices can constitute written contracts under Order XXXVII of the CPC, allowing for summary suits to be maintainable based on such documentation.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.