The main legal point established is that the defendant's failure to specifically address each allegation of fact and provide a specific denial led to the presumption that the unaddressed facts were admitted, resulting in a favorable judgment for the plaintiff.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. The instant suit has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.1,49,39,832/- (Rupees One Crore Forty Nine Lakhs Thirty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty Two Only) alongwith mandatory injunction, inter-alia seeking the following reliefs:

"a) Pass a decree for recovery of Rs.1,49,39,832/- (Rupees One Crore Forty Nine lacs Thirty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred & thirty two only) in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants alongwith future and pendentelite interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of suit till realization.

b) Pass a decree of mandatory injunction thereby directing the direct the defendant no. 1-4 to issue form No. 3B to the Plaintiff.

c) Award costs of the suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants;

d) Pass any other and further relief which this hon'ble court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case."

2. The captioned suit filed on behalf of the plaintiff was originally numbered as CS(OS) 2502/2008. Since, the value of the instant suit was more than Rs.1 Crore, therefore, the said suit was renumbered as CS(COMM) 1604/2016 vide order dated 5th December, 2016.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The plaintiff company is duly registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the business of trade and supply of Irons, Ingots, Billets, etc.

4. The defendant No. 1 is a private limited company having defendants No. 2 to 4 as its Directors.

5. The defendant No. 5 i.e., the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur is a statutory body established under the provisions of State Bank of India (Subsidiary Bank) Act, 1959. However, since, no specific relief was sought against the defendant No. 5, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff withdrew the suit qua defendant No. 5 as it was only impleaded as a defendant since the amounts of defendants No. 1 to 4 were lying in its account.

6. The parties, i.e., the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 4 are associated by way of a business transaction linked to the supply/selling of various commodities related to the business of the plaintiff.

7. In adherence to the transaction above, the plaintiff supplied the goods to the defendant, subject to the condition that it shall make the payments of the supplied goods within 30 days.

8. The genesis of the dispute stem from the non-payment of Rs.1,03,03,332/- (Rupees One Crore Three Lacs Three Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty Two only) with respect to the goods supplied to the defendant company by the plaintiff.

9. Being aggrieved by the actions of the defendants the plaintiff instituted the instant suit before this Court to recover the said amount alongwith interest for the services supplied to the defendants.

10. The instant suit came up for hearing before this Court on 2nd December, 2008 whereby the Predecessor Bench of this Court was pleased to issue summons of the instant suit to the defendants.

11. The defendant No. 2 via its legal attorney entered his appearance on 15th April, 2009 and sought time to file reply to the instant suit. It has been also recorded that the summons to defendant No. 1 remain unserved on the note "...no one to receive".

12. It is matter of fact that the defendant No. 1 is a company that falls under the category of a juristic person. Thus, the same warrants to be represented through its directors and since the defendant No. 2 was a director of the same at the relevant time, i.e., when the transactions were carried between the parties, therefore, the service of the summons upon the defendant No. 2 was deemed service upon defendant No. 1 company.

13. In view of the foregoing facts, it shall not be wrong to mention herein that the service of summons upon all the defendants was duly completed. Despite the same, the defendant No. 1 company chose to remain silent upon the dispute in question and did not file written statement to the instant suit.

14. Furthermore, perusal of the orders passed by this Court in i