The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the plaintiff to a decree for the recovery of the debt along with interest under the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

JUDGMENT :

Krishna Rao, J.

1. The Plaintiff had filed the instant suit against the defendants praying for a decree for an amount of Rs.15,20,659/-along with interim interest.

2. As per the service report dated 30.11.2018, writ of summon was issued upon defendant no. 4 on 19.08.2014. Undelivered package of the defendant no.1 with the endorsement ‘Left’ was received on 12.08.2014. Postal acknowledgment receipt with respect to defendant nos. 2 and 4 were received on 25.09.2014 and 27.08.2014 respectively. Undelivered package with the endorsement ‘not claimed’ with respect to defendant no.3 was received on 29.08.2014. Neither acknowledgment receipt nor undelivered package was received with respect to defendant no. 5. As per the report of Deputy Registrar (Ct & J.) dated 12.11.2014, defendant nos. 1, 2, 4 & 5 entered their appearance through their Learned Advocate. As per the report dated 17.12.2018 issued by Deputy Registrar (Ct & J.), the defendant no.3 has not entered appearance and the undelivered package of the defendant no.3 was returned unserved with the remark “not claimed”. In view of the report, this Court by an order dated 16.11.2022 had fixed the matter as “undefended”. Subsequently the plaintiff has informed this Court that the defendant no. 4 has filed written statement but the written statement was not on record and this Court has called for report from the Registrar. On receipt of such report, it was found that the written statement filed by the defendant no.4 was not accepted due to defect and accordingly, the suit is heard as “undefended”.

3. The Plaintiff carries on the business of sale of flex and other goods under the name and style of ‘Sibco Trading Compnay’ as a sole proprietor.

4. Sometimes in or around May’ 2010, the defendant nos. 2 to 5 had approached the plaintiff, for supply of flex.

5. One Mr. Anil Khosla and one Mr. Mayank Kejriwal, who all identified as the representatives of defendant no.1, had approached the plaintiff to take its services.

6. The Plaintiff and the defendants had entered the agreement orally and had agreed that the orders will be placed by the defendants orally. Certain terms and conditions were also agreed between the parties, which as follows:

“(a) The Plaintiff would supply the said goods upon receiving orders as aforesaid from the defendant no.1.

(b) The defendant no.1 would be represented by the defendant nos. 2 to 5 or by the dealing agents as mentioned hereinabove.

(c) Such orders would be placed by way of telephonic conversations.

(d) The term of payment was 30 days from the date of despatch of the said goods.

(e) The price for the said goods was to be paid by account payee cheques or by way of electronic transfer (RTGS/NEFT).

(f) Any discrepancies found in the invoices relating to quality, quantity etc. was required to be informed immediately at the time of delivery by the defendant no.1.

(g) In case of dishonour of cheques, a sum of Rs.400/-would be recovered as cheques dishonour charges.

(h) Interest @24% p.a. would be charged on unpaid invoices till final realization of payment.

(i) All disputes by and between the parties herein were subject to Kolkata jurisdiction exclusively.”

7. On the basis of the representations of the defendant no.1 and believing the same to be true, the plaintiff supplied huge quantity of goods, starting from 12th May, 2010. Thereafter the plaintiff had raised total 21 invoices for an aggregate sum of Rs.18,59,074/-. Alongwith the invoices, one credit note was also issued by the plaintiff, which aggregates to a sum of Rs. 37,080/-.

8. During the period between 15th January, 2011 and 12th July, 2011, the defendant has made part payments to the plaintiff of an aggregate sum of Rs. 9,37,015/-.

9. In the meantime, two cheques were also issued by the defendant no.1 towards the due amount payable, which were dishonoured. By reason of such dishonour of cheques, an amount of Rs. 800/-was deducted from the account of the plaintiff and the defendants are liable to pay such a