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

2026 Supreme(Raj) 423

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, BENCH AT JAIPUR
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, ACJ., BIPIN GUPTA, J.
M/s Kanchan India Limited, Through Its Managing Director - Appellant 
Versus 
M/s Shalimar Electricals, Through Statavdhari Shri Satyanarayan, Son of Late Shri Ramchandra Ajmera – Respondent
D.B. Civil First Appeal No. 152 of 2020
Decided On : 21-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajendra Sharma.
For the Respondent: Mr. Nirmal Solanki with Ms. Pragya Pandey.

Printed interest conditions on invoices are unilateral and not binding without evidence of mutual assent. Courts may exercise discretion to reduce excessive interest rates to a reasonable, compensatory level when no specific agreed-upon contractual rate exists in a commercial transaction.

Headnote:(A) Sale of Goods Act, 1930 - Section 61 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 34 - Recovery of outstanding amount - Interest on delayed payment - Unilateral stipulations on invoices without mutual assent.

(B) Contractual obligation - Consensus ad-idem - Essential requirements of a valid contract - Mere printing of terms on invoices not sufficient for binding agreement - Burden of proof to show specific acceptance of onerous conditions - Appellate courts should balance equities when contract is silent on rate of interest. (Paras 8.3, 8.5, 8.16)

Facts of the case:
The respondent filed a suit for recovery of an outstanding amount related to the supply of goods, which was decreed by the trial court. The trial court awarded interest at a rate of 24% per annum based on stipulations printed on the invoices. The appellant challenged this rate, contending that the invoices were unilateral documents and that no specific agreement existed regarding the interest rate.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the invoices were unilateral documents and the interest rate was not mutually agreed upon. The court emphasized that the compensatory nature of interest justifies reduction where the rate is excessive or lacks contractual consensus. Consequently, the court found it equitable to reduce the interest rate from 24% to 9% per annum from the date of the legal notice.

Issues: The main issues were whether printed clauses on invoices constitute a binding contract regarding interest rates and whether an appellate court has the discretion to reduce an interest rate deemed excessive in the absence of a specific prior agreement.

Ratio Decidendi: An invoice is a unilateral document, and terms printed thereon are not binding unless there is evidence of mutual assent or conscious acceptance. Without a concluded contract regarding the rate of interest, the court retains the discretionary jurisdiction to fix a reasonable, compensatory interest rate based on the facts and circumstances of the transaction to balance the equities between parties.

Result: Appeal partly allowed. Interest rate reduced to 9% per annum.

Table of Content
1. overview of trial facts and judicial history of the dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. conflicting contentions regarding unilateral invoice interest clauses. (Para 5 , 6)

JUDGMENT :

Bipin Gupta, J.

1. The present Civil First Appeal has been preferred by the defendant-appellant assailing the judgment dated 23.10.2019, passed by learned Commercial Court, Ajmer in Civil Suit No. 189/2018 (124/2014) CIS No. 123/2018, whereby the suit instituted by the plaintiff-respondent for recovery of amount has been partly decreed against the defendant-appellant.

2. The controversy, in a narrow compass, is that a suit came to be filed by the plaintiff-respondent against the defendant- appellant for recovery of amount to the tune of Rs.10,24,017/-, contending therein that on 18.03.2008, the plaintiff-respondent, who was a dealer of M/s. Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd., received a purchase order from the defendant-appellant for supply of electric switchgear worth Rs. 60,43,356/-. The supplies were effected from 22.04.2008 till 19.05.2008. However, the defendant- appellant did not take delivery of the goods and, therefore, the plaintiff-respondent was compelled to store the goods at its premises/godown. Upon being asked the reason for not taking delivery of the goods, the defendant-appellant replied that the requirements had changed and, therefore, a fresh purchase order would be placed according to the new requirements.

2.1 On 13.08.2008, a fresh purchase order was issued for material amounting to Rs.44,51,000/-. In compliance with the fresh purchase order, material worth Rs.44,00,000/- was supplied from 20.08.2008 to 10.12.2008. However, the defendant-appellant paid only an amount of Rs.40,00,000/-. Thus, a remaining amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- was due and payable.

2.2 The plaintiff-respondent, in his plaint, claimed that in its books of account, against the said purchase order, a principal amount along with agreed interest amounting to Rs.8,30,774/- was outstanding. It was also pleaded that, against the purchase order dated 18.03.2008, since the material was not taken by the defendant-appellant, the plaintiff-respondent had to pay a penalty to M/s. Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd., amounting to Rs.1,93,243/-. Thus, a suit was filed for recovery of total amount of Rs.10,24,017/-.

2.3 The defendant-appellant filed a detailed written statement admitting the fact of the purchase order for supply of switchgear worth Rs.60,43,356/-. It was further contended that the material supplied pursuant to the subsequent purchase order was not of standard quality and, therefore, a debit note of Rs.4,00,000/- was issued to the plaintiff-respondent. It was also contended that the penalty allegedly paid by the plaintiff-respondent to M/s. Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd., amounting to Rs.1,93,243/-, could not be recovered from the defendant-appellant, in absence of any privity of contract. On the aforesaid grounds, dismissal of the suit was prayed for by the defendant-appellant.

3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Commercial Court framed as many as eleven issues which reads as under:

3.1 In support of its pleadings, the plaintiff-respondent examined two witnesses and produced various documents in evidence. On the other hand, the defendant-appellant examined only one witness in support of his case.

3.2 Issue Nos.1 and 3 were decided in favour of the plaintiff. Issue No.2 was decided against the plaintiff. Issue No. 4 was partly allowed in favour of the plaintiff wherein the it was held entitled to receive the outstanding amount of Rs.4,00,000/- along with agreed interest @ 24% from the date of service of notice i.e. 01.12.2011. Issue No. 5 was decided against defendant. Issue No. 6 was partly allowed in favour of the defendant. Lastly, Issue Nos. 7 to 10 were also decided against defendant.

3.3 Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record and on the basis of finding of the issues, the learned Commerci

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 Back to top