The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles governing the grant of leave to defend in a summary suit, as outlined in M/s. Mechelec Engineers & Manufactures v. M/s. Basic Equipment Corporation (1976) 4 SCC 687.

Manmohan, J.:--

1. Present summary suit has been filed under Order XXXVII CPC for recovery of Rs. 34,16,722/- along with pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum.

2. Ms. Kajal Chandra, learned counsel for the plaintiff stated that goods worth Rs. 20,25,883/- had been supplied to defendant No. 1 Company for its Unit III plant at Noida during the period April, 2013 to September, 2013. She further stated that the plaintiff had supplied goods worth Rs. 7,44,732/- to the defendant No. 1 for its Unit V plant at Roorkee during the period May 2013 to August 2013.

3. Ms. Kajal Chandra contended that the present suit had been filed under Order XXXVII CPC on the basis of the terms and conditions mentioned in the invoices. The terms and conditions mentioned in the invoices are reproduced hereinbelow:-

“i. We recommend that before using our products in full scale production, the customer should make his own tests to determine the suitability of the products for his own purpose under his operating conditions. As the circumstances under which our products are stored, handled and used, are beyond our control, we cannot assume any responsibility for their use by the customer.

ii. No claim with regard to the return of the goods, shortage of weight, or any other matter whatsoever will be recognized unless notified in writing within 8 days after receipt of goods.

iii. in case of any legal dispute the forum shall always be Delhi.

iv. Interest @30% will be charged on this invoice from due date.

v. Our responsibility ceases as the goods leave our godown.”

4. Ms. Chandra stated that the plaintiff gave to the defendant a credit of 60 to 90 days for making payment from the date of invoices and for any payments made thereafter, the plaintiff was liable to pay interest @ 30%.

5. Ms. Chandra contended that the defendant No. 1 company had duly acknowledged the receipt of the goods worth Rs. 20,25,883/- and Rs. 7,44,732/- at its Unit III as well as Unit V plants respectively by issuing “C” forms to the plaintiff. In support of her contention, she referred to C Forms No. 0912137C609213 and 0912139C609212 both dated 13th December, 2013 with regard to invoices for Unit III at Noida and also C Forms No. UKC0314042548461 and UKVAT/C-2009-0235457 dated 7th March, 2014 in respect of Unit V at Roorkee.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, learned counsel for the defendants stated that the plaintiff was seeking recovery of amounts relying upon certain invoices when, in fact, none of the said documents had been accepted or acknowledged by the defendant No. 1 Company or its officials. He stated that none of the terms and conditions of the invoices had ever been accepted by the defendants.

7. Mr. Bhandari further stated that the defendants had received a batch of goods which were defective and of inferior quality. He stated that owing to the default of the plaintiff company, the defendants had received several debit notes from various customers amounting to Rs. 30,00,000/- (approx.) which was much more than the alleged claim of the plaintiff. He stated that besides the loss of business and money, the defendants had also lost many of their important customers and reputation in the market leading to immense damage to the defendant No. 1 Company.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that it is essential to first outline the principles on which leave to defend is to be granted in a summary suit. In M/s. Mechelec Engineers & Manufactures v. M/s. Basic Equipment Corporation, (1976) 4 SCC 687 the Supreme Court has held as under:-

“(a) If the defendant satisfies the court that he has a good defence to the claim on its merits the plaintiff is not entitled to leave to sign judgment and the defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend.

(b) If the defendant raises a triable issue indicating that he has a fair or bona fide or reasonable defence although not a positively good defence the plaintiff is not entitled to sign j