Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Ranjan Gogoi and C.R. Sarma, JJ.
Shankarlal Jhawar - Appellants
Vs.
State of Assam and Ors. - Respondent
R.F.A. No. 14 of 2008
Decided On: 20.08.2010
Indian Penal Code ,1860 - Section 420/468/471 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 80 - Order 30 - Rule 1 and 10 - Tender - Supply order - Forgery and production of false documents - Plaintiff supplied ration item to Defendant No. 3 and total bill amount towards supply of ration, during period - Against said bill amount Plaintiff received payment for supply made, for months of toand thus an amountbeing bill amount for supply of goods in months remained unpaid - In spite of demandin payment of said balance amount as Defendant No. 3 failed to respond Plaintiff served a pleaders notice dated on Defendants by registered post with A/D - Notice were duly received by Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 - Admitting plaintiffs claim regarding existence of a contract and supply of ration items by Plaintiff to Defendant No. 3 for period as per conditions laid down in supply order Defendants averred that against supply of dry ration for month an amount was paid by Defendant No 3 to Enterprises – Held, Supply of goods by Plaintiff was made in course of his business - Therefore in commercial parlance unless there is anything to contrary price of goods supplied is required to be paid without unreasonable delay - Claim for payment arises immediately after date of supply - That apart period of limitation also starts to run from date of supply - Withholding of payment certainly caused financial loss and injury to the Plaintiff - Therefore transaction being a commercial one Plaintiff is entitled to be compensated for loss incurred by him due to withholding of payment and compensation may be granted by way of interes - Plaintiff has claimed interest @ Rs. 18% per annum - Hence Court are of considered opinion that learned trial Judge committed error by refusing to grant interest on ground of absence of any agreement towards payment of interest - Nature of loss suffered by Plaintiff, court unhesitatingly hold that Plaintiff is entitled to get interest at commercial rate as claimed by Bank - Considering fluctuation of rate of interest claimed by Bank in commercial transactions court hold that Plaintiff shall get interest @ 12% on the principal amount awarded aforementioned from - Appeal allowed
C.R. Sarma, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 14.11.2007, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) No. 2, Guwahati, in Money Suit No. 72/2004.
2. The Plaintiff's case in brief, may be stated as follows:
On the basis of a supply order, issued by the Defendant No. 3, the Plaintiff supplied ration item to the Defendant No. 3 and the total bill amount, towards the supply of ration, during the period from June, 2001 to May, 2002, came to Rs. 52,06,781/-. Against the said bill amount, the Plaintiff received payment, for the supply made, for the months of September, 2001 to March, 2002 and thus an amount of Rs. 20,73,522/-, being the bill amount for supply of goods in the months of June 2001, July 2001, August 2001, April 2002 and May 2002 remained unpaid. In spite of demanding the payment of the said balance amount, as the Defendant No. 3 failed to respond, the Plaintiff served a pleader's notice, dated 17.3.04, on the Defendants by registered post with A/D. The notices were duly received by Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 on 19.3.04, 20.3.04 and 28.3.04 respectively. By the said notice, the Plaintiff demanded immediate payment of Rs. 20,73,522/- together with interest @18% from the date of the bill till actual payment, and Rs. 5000/- towards the cost of notice and Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing harassment and mental agony. As the Defendants failed to respond to the said notice, the Plaintiff instituted the suit for realisation of an amount of Rs. 25,39,028/- with interest thereon at the rate of Rs. 18% with cost of the suit.
3. The Defendants contested the suit, by filing written statement. In their written statement, the Defendants contended, inter alia, that the suit was not maintainable on facts and law and also for non-service of notice under Section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure. Admitting the Plaintiff's claim, regarding existence of a contract and the supply of ration items by the Plaintiff to the Defendant No. 3 for the period from June, 2001 to May, 2002 as per the conditions laid down in the supply order, the Defendants averred that, against the supply of dry ration for the month of June, 2001 to August, 2001, an amount of Rs. 12,03,430/- was paid by the Defendant No. 3 to M/s Manoj Enterprises, Chatribari, Guwahati by Govt. Draft No. 007273, dated 4.12.01, which was received by one Shri S.R. Bagree, on behalf of M/s Manoj Enterprises on 4.12.01, and that again payments of Rs. 18,05,982/- and Rs. 13,20,388/-, towards supply of dry ration for the months of September, 2001 to March, 2002, were also made by the Defendant No. 3 in favour of the M/s Manoj Enterprises, vide Pay Cheque No. 37 dated 30.2.02 and Pay Cheque No. 59 dated 29.6.02 and that the said payment was received by one Prahlad Singh Tanwar, on behalf of M/s Manoj Enterprises. It is contended by the Defendants, in their written statement, that the payment in respect of the bills for the month of April, 2002 and May, 2002 were held up on the basis of the letter No. S/V III-101/1999-2000/Pt/143 dated Guwahati the 1st March, 2003, issued by Defendant No. 2 thereby directing the Defendant No. 3 not to release any payment to the Plaintiff for the period from April, 2002 to May, 2002, due to the latter's involvement in forgery. It is stated, in the written statement, that due to involvement of the Plaintiff in forgery and production of false documents regarding Sales Tax Registration Certificate, at the time of submitting the tender paper for obtaining the supply order, a FIR was lodged by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID, Assam and that CID P.S. Case No. 18/04, under Section 420/468/471 IPC, was registered against the Plaintiff. According to Defendants, the payment for supply of dry ration for remaining two months i.e. April, 2002 and May, 2002, amounting to Rs. 8,60,977/- was held up by the Assam Police HQRs. for involvement of the Plaintiff in forgery and production of false documents regarding AGST registrat
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
