Back
2018 Supreme(Cal) 456
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J.
RINKI PLASTICS PRIVATE LIMITED - Petitioner
Versus
GD PETRO CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED - Respondent
CS No. 259 of 2016
Decided on : 24-08-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Chayan Gupta, Ms. Pallavi Gandhi, Mr. V. Raja Rao, Adv.
The court upheld the principle of unpaid price for goods sold and delivered under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and the defendant's failure to defend the claim influenced the court's decision.
Headnote:
Unpaid Price - Sale of Goods - [Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 59; Limitation Act, 1963, Section 3] - The court found that the plaintiff supplied goods to the defendant as per agreed specifications and the defendant received the goods without objection. The plaintiff proved the authenticity of invoices and delivery challans, and the outstanding dues were supported by debtor's ledger. The defendant failed to make any payment after a certain amount and did not defend the claim, leading to a decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sued the defendant for unpaid price for goods sold and delivered. The defendant received the goods but failed to pay the outstanding amount despite repeated requests. The defendant did not defend the claim and showed no interest in the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff proved the supply of goods and the authenticity of invoices and delivery challans. The defendant failed to make any payment after a certain amount and did not defend the claim, leading to a decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Issues: Unpaid price for goods sold and delivered, lack of defense by the defendant.
Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiff proved the supply of goods and outstanding dues, while the defendant failed to defend the claim or make further payments after a certain amount.
Final Decision: Decree in favor of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.3,59,43,670/- and interim interest at 18% per annum.
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J.
1. The instant suit is on account of unpaid price for goods sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant. The plaintiff has claimed a decree for a sum of Rs.3,59,43,670/- together with interim interest and interest upon judgment at 18% per annum.
2. The case made out in the plaint is that the plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of PVC pipes and fittings and has acquired a substantial goodwill in this line of business. The defendant approached the plaintiff requiring various types of PVC pipes and fittings and placed orders on the plaintiff for supply of several quantities of the aforesaid goods of required specifications. The plaintiff caused the goods of specifications as given by the defendant and delivered the same to the defendant of a total amount of Rs.3,92,96,670/- (Rupees Three Crores Ninety Two Lakhs Ninety six thousand Six Hundred Seventy) in January 2014. The plaintiff raised invoices for the goods delivered to the defendant together with copies of the challans showing receipt of the goods as delivered to the defendant. The defendant received the goods supplied by the plaintiff without any demur or protest but failed and neglected to pay the amount raised under the invoices despite repeated requests. The arrangement for payment under the transaction was maintained by way of a mutual open current running and continuous account where payments received on ad hoc basis from the defendant were given due credit without reference to any particular invoice and the amount was debited from the account for the payments made. The total amount of goods sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant in January 2014 stood at Rs.3,92,96,670/- and the total payments made by the defendant for such deliveries amounted to Rs.33,53,000/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand). A sum of Rs.3,59,43,670/-is therefore due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff (and is the decretal amount claimed). The plaint refers to a schedule of a statement of the payments received by the plaintiff from the defendant from time to time against the goods supplied and a balance of Rs.3,92,96,670/- being outstanding from the defendant. The plaintiff caused a notice issued through its advocate to the defendant on 31st August 2016 calling upon the defendant to pay the outstanding dues with interest. Despite such notice, the defendant did not take any steps to repay the dues of the plaintiff. The instant suit was filed on 1st October 2016.
3. The material disclosed in the plaint shows that the suit is maintainable as the plaintiff’s claim for the dues against the defendant is not barred by limitation. The defendant is carrying on business within the jurisdiction of this Court and therefore this Court is vested with the jurisdiction to try the instant suit.
4. The defendant did not enter appearance in the suit despite service of summons on the defendant and hence by an order dated 1st May 2018, the suit was directed to proceed as an undefended suit. In the said order it was also recorded that Counsel appearing for the defendant sought leave to retire from the matter since no instruction was forthcoming from her client.
5. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff produced various documents which were marked as Exhibits in the examination-in-chief. These are:
Ext. A (collectively) - true copies of invoices/bills issued by the Plaintiff for the goods sold and delivered to the plaintiff.
Ext. B (collectively) – true copies of challans for receipt of goods as delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant.
Ext. C- statement prepared by the plaintiff.
Ext. D, E and F- ledger and statement of outstanding amounts and receipts prepared by the plaintiff.
Ext. G- notice dated 31st August, 2016 from the plaintiff’s advocate-on-record to the defendant together with postal receipt.
6. Mr. Sandip Modi was brought in as a witness for the plaintiff to give evidence in support of the case made out in t
