Acknowledgment of due amount and failure to pay despite repeated requests can lead to deemed admission of averments in the plaint.

MANMOHAN, J.

1. Present suit has been filed for recovery of USD $ 206,327, equivalent to Rs.1,23,79,620/-, along with pendente lite and future interest at 18% per annum and mandatory injunction. The prayer clause in the present suit is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“(a) Pass a decree for recovery of US$ 206,327 equivalent to Rs. 1,23,79,620/-(Rupees One Crore Twenty Three Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand Six Hundred And Twenty) alongwith pendentelite and future interest @18% per annum in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants;

(b) Pass a decree of mandatory injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the defendants thereby directing the defendants to handover to the Plaintiff Company the 31 steel racks constructed and owned by the plaintiff company or in the alternative pass a decree for recovery of Rs. 11,78,000/-(Eleven Lakhs Seventy Eight Thousand Only) being the value of the racks alongwith interest @18% p.a;

(e) Pass any such other or further order that this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case;”

2. On 06th November, 2017, this Court had dismissed the defendant no.1’s application for extension of time to file written statement and closed the right of defendant no.1 to file a written statement.

3. The plaintiff filed its list of witnesses as well as evidence by way of affidavits. However, thereafter, the defendants stopped appearing. Consequently, the defendants are proceeded ex parte.

4. The contentions and submissions advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff are as under:-

i. The defendant no.1, through its Directors, i.e. defendant nos. 2 and 3, approached the plaintiff company for supply of Bevelled Glass Panels made out of Float Glass 3.2 MM.

ii. The plaintiff agreed to supply the said products as per the specifications of the defendants.

iii. Since the defendant no.1 was a part of the Special Economic Zone (SEZ) the invoices were raised on the defendant no.1 in US Dollars. However, for accounting purposes the amounts were reflected in Indian Rupees, as per the availing exchange rates at the relevant time.

iv. The plaintiff maintained a separate Ledger/Statement of Account in respect of the transactions with the defendant no.1.

v. Initially, the orders were placed on the plaintiff company in the original name of the defendant no.1, i.e. M/s PV Technologies India Ltd., and a separate ledger account was maintained in respect of the transactions between the plaintiff company and the defendant no.1 during such period.

vi. Subsequently, the name of the defendant no.1 changed to M/s Moser Baer Solar Ltd. and thereafter the plaintiff company started maintaining a new ledger account in the name of M/s Moser Baer Solar Ltd.

vii. Prior to the commencement of the supply and delivery of the goods i.e. Bevelled Glass Panels made out of Float Glass 3.2 MM, the defendant no.1 had requested that the said goods be transported in stainless steel racks. The defendant no.1 paid an advance Rs.55,00,000/-to get the said racks constructed.

viii. The plaintiff company got 144 stainless steel racks constructed for the aforesaid purpose and the said racks were exclusively used by the plaintiff company for transporting the Bevelled Glass Panels made out of Float Glass 3.2 MM, to the defendant no.1.

ix. The aforesaid amount of Rs.55,00,000/-was adjusted by the plaintiff company @ Rs. 6.08 sqm of glass supplied and the whole advance stood adjusted on the completion of supplies of about 9,04,000 sqm of glass to the defendant no.1.

x. After the change of name of defendant no.1, it became highly irregular in paying its dues to the plaintiff company and various emails and letters were sent by the plaintiff company claiming its dues.

xi. The plaintiff ultimately issued a notice dated 13th January, 2012, calling upon the defendants to clear the outstanding overdue of US $ 158,981.04. The plaintiff also issued letter dated 13th February, 2012 calling upon the defendants to clear the outstanding dues. Subsequently, the