( 1 ) THIS order will govern the disposal of the above referred three applications moved on behalf of the respective defendant under Order 37 Rule 3 (5) CPC read with Section 151 CPC seeking leave to defend the summary suits filed by the plaintiff.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts and circumstances leading to the above applications in brief are that M/s Indian Iron and Steel Company Limited has filed the above referred three suits under the provisions of Rule 37 CPC for recovery of Rs. 63,85,547. 37 paise (claim in Suit No. 2290/1994); Rs. 74,17,775. 67 paise (claim in Suit No. 2335/1994); and for recovery of Rs. 16,18,344. 47 (claim in Suit No. 2291/1994) with pendente lite and future interest with the averments and allegations that it is a Government company, a subsidiary of M/s Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL), and the plaints have been signed and the suit instituted by authorised representative of the plaintiff namely Mr. N. Sarkar. The plaintiff, inter alia, is engaged in the business of supply of its iron and steel products to its consumers, traders and merchants on the terms and conditions contained in the delivery order, authorisation letter, gate pass and delivery note. Defendant a partnership firm is engaged in the business of manufacture of trailors for tractors, jeeps and steel fabrication and had been purchasing goods from the plaintiff initially against advance payment and subsequently on credit basis. During the period of 1992-93 the defendant purchased various items of iron and steel manufactured by the plaintiff on credit basis on the strength of delivery orders, authorisation letters and delivery notes and took delivery of the said goods. The defendant, however, failed to make the payment of the outstanding price of goods even after 30 days period and so they were called upon to make the payment of outstanding amounts through communications and ultimately through a legal notice but in vain.

( 3 ) THE suits were registered as summary suits within the meaning of Order 37 CPC and summons for appearance were issued in the first instance and the defendants had put in appearance. Later pursuant to issuance of summons for judgment, the defendants have filed the above referred applications under Order 37 Rule 3 (5) CPC for grant of leave to defend the said suits. The detailed facts and circumstances, reasons and the grounds on which the leave to defend has been sought are mentioned in the affidavit of the partner of the defendant. A careful perusal of the same would show that the defendants seek leave of the Court to defend the suits filed by the plaintiff mainly on the following grounds:

(I)THE suits filed by the plaintiff are not summary suits within the meaning of Order 37 CPC; (ii)Earlier suits filed by the defendant against the plaintiff for rendition of accounts etc. are pending in this Court and the proceedings stayed therein at the behest of the plaintiff as it was alleged that the plaintiff company had approached the BIFR for being declared as a sick company; and (iii) The amount claimed in the suit is not due and payable by the plaintiff because the defendant is entitled to a rebate on the bills as per policy and compensation towards notional losses suffered by them.

( 4 ) I have heard Mr. Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff and Mr. Sanjay Gupta, learned counsel representing the defendant/applicant and have given my thoughtful consideration to their respective submissions.

( 5 ) MR. SANJAY Gupta, learned counsel for the defendant has urged that the present suits are not covered by clause 2 (b) of Order 37 CPC because no definite terms and conditions were agreed and arrived between the parties in respect of the alleged transactions and there existed no written agreement between the parties. On the other hand, Mr. Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the plaintiff has urged that plaintiff s suits are summary suits for the recovery of unpaid price of goods supplied by the plaint