SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Krishna Rao, J.
Mamta Jaiswal – Appellant
versus
APL Metals Ltd. – Respondent
CS (COM) No.391 of 2024
(Old No. CS 142 of 2022)
Decided on 31.1.2025

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. Kanishk Kejriwal, Mr. Pranav Sharma, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. Satyaki Mukherjee, Mr. Aditya Mondal, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINT
Money suit – Demand raised against supply of goods has to be allowed.

Headnote:

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XXXVII Rule 1 – Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Section 12A – Money suit – Demand raised against supply of goods – All documents were exhibited in presence of Advocate appearing on behalf of defendant – At the time of exhibiting documents, defendant has not raised any objection – Defendant during cross-examination also has not put any question to the effect that documents relied or exhibited are forged or fabricated – Plaintiff has proved the case that defendant has placed purchase order to purchase 20,000 MT of Lead for a total sum of Rs.42,24,400/-and plaintiff has delivered Lead Ingot of 20,220 Kg for a total sum of Rs.42,70,868/- and raised invoice – On receipt of materials, defendant paid part payment of Rs.25,00,000/- – Defendant directed to pay Rs.17,24,400/- along with 18% interest. (Paras 14, 15, 16 and 17)

Result: Money Suit decreed.

JUDGMENT

Krishna Rao, J.—The plaintiff has filed the present suit praying for Decree for a sum of Rs.18,50,257.58 along with interest and interest upon judgment at the rate of 18% per annum.

2. The plaintiff is engaged in the business of retail and wholesale of lead and lead ingots. The defendant is engaged in production and supply of refined lead, lead alloys and lead oxides.

3. The defendant was in need for Lead for its manufacturing process, therefore, the defendant, being aware that the plaintiff is a whole-seller of Lead, approached the plaintiff. After negotiations between the parties, it was agreed that the defendant would place purchase orders upon the plaintiff for supply of lead at specific rates and the plaintiff would supply Lead and raise invoices upon the defendant and thereafter the defendant will make payment in terms of the invoices raised by the plaintiff. It was also agreed between the parties that in the event of delay in making payment, the defendant would make payment of interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

4. On 25th November, 2021, the defendant placed a purchase order upon the plaintiff, for supply of 20,000 MT of Lead which the plaintiff has supplied the same on 28th November, 2021. On the same day, the plaintiff has raised invoice for a sum of Rs.42,24,400/- on 28th November, 2021.

5. The defendant received the goods sold and delivered by the plaintiff without raising any objection and/or demur in any manner whatsoever.

6. The defendant has made part payment of a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- on 24th December, 2021 and thereafter the defendant failed to make further balance payment to the plaintiff. The plaintiff through her Learned Advocate sent a legal notice to the defendant no 1st March, 2022 calling upon the defendant for making further balance payment of Rs.17,67,248/- along with interest total amounting to Rs.18,21,282.21. The defendant has received the notice but neither the defendant has sent any reply nor has paid the due amount to the plaintiff.

7. The plaintiff submits that the defendant has also deducted and deposited TDS (Tax Deducted at Source) in respect of the said invoice raised by the plaintiff in acknowledgement of its dues.

8. The plaintiff has filed the suit by obtaining leave under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 by an order dated 14th June, 2022.

9. The writ of summons was served upon the defendant on 16th September, 2022 but the defendant has not filed written statement. The application filed by the defendant being G.A. No. 3 of 2023 for extension of time to file written statement was dismissed and the suit was placed in the list of “undefended suit”.

10. The plaintiff in order to prove its case has examined one witness, namely, Mr. Anand Kumar Gupta and exhibited 10 (Ten) Documents and are marked as “Exhibit A to Exhibit J”.

Exhibit A – Original Copy of the Power of Attorney, authorising the P.W.1 to give evidence on behalf of the plaintiff company.

Exhibit B – Copy of purchase order dated 25th November, 2021 sent by the defendant to the plaintiff through electronic mail.

Exhibit C – copy of the purchase order dated 25th November, 2021.

Exhibit D and D/1 – Original copy of the tax invoice and containing the seal and signature of the APL Metals Ltd.

Exhibit E – Copy of e-Way bill showing transportation of materials from the factory of the plaintiff to the defendant’s address.

Exhibit F – Copies of bank statements of Kotak Mahindra Bank of the plaintiff.

Exhibit G – Copy of ledger account sent by the defendant to the plaintiff sharing the closing balance amount of Rs.17,67,248/-.

Exhibit H – Copy of ledger confirmation for the year 2021-22 signed by both the parties.

Exhibit I – TDS Certificated under section 26AS.

Exhibit J – Goods and Services Tax Certificate for financial year 2021-22.

11. Though the defendant has not filed written statement but the defendant has cross-examined the plaintiff’s witness. The plaintiff has proved purchase order dated 25th November, 20

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top