Suit for recovery of money due against supply of goods.

The petitioner is the defendant in the suit O.S.No.7280 of 2000 on the file of the XV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.34,504.90 towards principal and interest by the petitioner/defendant.

2. The brief facts of the plaint are as follows:-

The plaintiff is a manufacturer of steel strips. On 11.11.1997 under Invoice No.333/97-98, rolled steel strips for the value of Rs.20,297/- were supplied to the defendant and as per the terms of payment, seven days credit was also allowed. The defendant failed to pay the amount within seven days from the date of invoice, and he issued a cheque to the plaintiff on 28.01.2000. When presented, the cheque bounced with an endorsement “insufficient funds” on 10.05.2000. A statutory notice was issued to the defendant and its Director on 25.05.2000 demanding the payment of above referred cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The defendant sent a belated replay on 10.07.2000, wherein he not only admitted the dishonour of the cheque, but also denied his liability to pay the entire suit amount. Hence the suit for recovery of Rs.20,297/- towards principal amount of value of the goods sold and interest at 24% p.a. which works out to Rs.14,207.90 from 11.11.1997 to 10.10.2000 and thus, a total sum of Rs.34,504.90.

3. The defendant filed I.A.No.14523 of 2001 under Order 37 Rule 4 C.P.C. praying for grant of leave to defend the suit, wherein he has mentioned that the plaintiff had supplied defective materials and not according to the specifications of the order of purchase and as such the plaintiff was asked to take back the materials, that cheque dated 28.01.2000 was not honoured by the defendant, that as for as the statutory notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is concerned, the defendant has sent a reply denying his liability, and that the plaintiff is not entitled for interest at the rate of 24% p.a., since there was no contract in this regard, and if at all the plaintiff can claim interest from the date of decree under Section 34 C.P.C.

4. The plaintiff filed counter stating that triable issue in this case is whether the suit claim is due or not, that the defendant has not averred even a single point to demonstrate how the suit claim is not due except making a blank statement that the suit claim is disputed and nothing is due, that the defendant neither denied the supply of goods nor denied the consideration under the supply of goods, and that the defendant has issued a cheque for the value of the goods, but the cheque bounced and in the belated reply to the statutory notice sent by the plaintiff, the defendant has stated that the goods supplied were not according to the specifications of the order of the purchase by the defendant and it is only an invention for the purpose of the case and has prayed to dismiss the application to leave to defend.

5. The learned Assistant Judge, City Civil Court has dismissed the application filed by the defendant for grant of leave to defend on the ground that prima facie case has been established by the plaintiff by producing documentary evidence and the application to leave to defend has been filed only to protract the proceedings.

6. The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/defendant would contend that there are triable issues like whether the goods sold to the defendant were defective in nature and not according to the specifications required by the defendant and whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim interest at the rate of 24% p.a.

7. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff would contend that under the usage and custom in trade, the creditor who supplied the goods, is entitled for interest at 24% p.a. and also the defendant did not question the quality of the goods for nearly three years.

8. I gave my anxious consideration to the rival contentions of both the sides and also perused the m