S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. This is a defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree in the summary suit, being Suit No. 1383/1989, for recovery of Rs.1,51,50,000/- plus interest of Rs.58,75,620/-. The appellant/defendant’s application seeking leave to defend the suit was dismissed on 15.10.1993.

Plaint

2. The facts alleged in the plaint are that the respondent company (hereafter "the plaintiff") engages in the business of manufacturing and selling controls and devices for refrigeration and air conditioning equipment. The defendant carries on his business under the name of Nexim/Mohan Murti, at 47, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi as well as at 110/111 Pragati Tower, Rajendra Place, New Delhi. He trades under the name “Nexim” even in Mumbai, in an office at Nariman Point, and owned – at the relevant time - a trading office under the same name at the World Trade Centre in Moscow, in the erstwhile USSR. At the time of institution of the suit, the defendant was working as a Director of Corporate Development of Escorts Ltd., New Delhi.

3. The suit alleged that the defendant, by a contract of supply dated 27.12.1985 (“first contract”), with the official Russian importer, Technointorg, Moscow, agreed to ship some goods manufactured by the plaintiff/respondent in West Germany, valued at Rs.2,535,000 (payment of which was to be made under the contract in Indian Rupees to the agreed account of the defendant). By a written purchase order dated 23.1.1986, (akin to the contract with the importer), for a price (amounting to DM 591,500), the defendant ordered the goods from the plaintiff. The plaintiff issued an invoice dated 4.3.1986 embodying quantities (“the first invoice”), prices and description of the goods to be sold and a written contract was effected. Goods were then shipped to the importer in the erstwhile Soviet Union by the plaintiff in accordance with the defendant’s shipping instructions. The defendant subsequently represented, to the plaintiff, that he be given a credit of DM (Deutsche Mark) 84,500, as there was a discrepancy in the price stated in the purchase order and the invoice; the plaintiff accordingly provided a credit of DM 84,500 and consequently, a sum of DM 507,000 became due to the plaintiff from the defendant. After this, the defendant, by its next contract with the importer dated 11.04.1986 (“second contract”), for Rs.4,560,000, agreed to supply some goods of the plaintiff, which in turn were procured by way of purchase orders dated 24.4.1986 at DM 1,064,000.The plaintiff issued an invoice to the defendant dated 13.8.1986 (“the second invoice”),accepting these purchase orders, and effecting a written contract. Consequently, a sum of DM 1,064,000 was owed to the plaintiff by the defendant.

4. The plaintiff shipped all the goods to the importer in accordance with the defendant’s shipping instructions. The suit alleges that the importer paid into the defendant’s bank account, the full invoice amount of Rs.7,095,000 (Rs.2,535,000 and Rs.4,560,000 for orders dated 27.12.1985 and 11.4.1986 respectively). The defendant had initially agreed to pay the amount due to the plaintiff, in Deutsche Marks, but subsequently in US Dollars. Therefore, while the amount owed was 1,571,000 DM, the defendant had undertaken to pay US $1,000,000 to the plaintiff. The defendant had admitted his liability to pay the amount to the plaintiff in his letter dated 10.12.1987 (at page 36), stating that he would pay it in three monthly instalments, the first of which was due in January 1988, and the last of which was to be paid by 15.3.1988. Later, on 13.1.1988 the defendant adopted the position that the entire amount would be made good in a single instalment. On 15.2.1988, he sent a message to the plaintiff from Singapore requesting its representative to meet him at Frankfurt airport on 17.2.1988 to enable the defendant to pay them by way of a cheque. On that date, a cheque dated 31.3.1988 and drawn on the Indian Bank, Singapore, and pay