JUDGMENT

[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

Amit Bansal, J. - By way of the present appeal, the appellant who was the defendant in the suit, impugns the judgment dated 9th November, 2023 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the application filed on behalf of the appellant under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking grant of leave to defend has been dismissed.

2. Issue Notice.

3. Notice is accepted by the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

4. With the consent of the respondent (the original plaintiff), the appeal is taken up for disposal.

5. The present appeal arises out of a summary suit under Order XXXVII filed on behalf of the respondent under CPC seeking recovery of Rs.2,81,92,694.16/-. The suit was premised on three invoices raised by the respondent on the appellant for supply of goods and services related to upgradation of software systems, as detailed in the table below:

Invoice DateInvoice No.DescriptionInvoice Amount (in INR)Amount Due (in INR)20.04.20175290019389Service-E-License97,75,000.0095,65,060.8025.04.20175290019479Material30,37,499.9530,37,499.9528.04.20175290019570Service Extended Warranty23,00,000.0023,00,000.00Total1,51,12,499.951,49,02,560.75

6. The respondent claimed the aforesaid amount of Rs.2,81,92,694.16/after adding interest rate of 18% per annum from the due date of payment of the aforementioned three invoices till the date of filing the suit.

7. The learned single judge took note of the fact that the appellant had not disputed the emails dated 27th November, 2017, 14th March, 2018 and 20th April, 2018, sent by the appellant to the respondent seeking further time to make the payments. The learned single judge also took note of the fact that the aforesaid emails were sent by the appellant after 29th June, 2017, when as per the appellant, he had made payment of Rs.57.12 lakhs to settle all outstanding dues of the respondent. Accordingly, he held that no plausible defence or triable issues have been raised by the appellant and accordingly, rejected the application for leave to defend.

8. Consequently, a decree for the principal amount of Rs.1,49,02,560.75/- was passed in favour of the respondent along with interest @ 7% per annum from the time when the invoices became due till the payment was received by the respondent.

9. Assailing the aforesaid judgment of the Single Judge, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to take note of the fact that a sum of Rs.57.12 lakhs had already been paid by the appellant to the respondent. He further states that the respondent vide its emails dated 22nd September, 2017 and 24th October, 2017 had only made a demand of Rs.23 lakhs, which was much less than the amount claimed in the suit. It is further submitted that since the appellant never received the legal notice dated 26th June, 2020 sent on behalf of the respondent, he could not take the defences taken in the application for leave to defend, at an earlier point of time.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent sent various emails to the appellant calling upon the appellant to pay the amount under the invoices. The appellant never disputed the amount of the invoices and sought two to three weeks' time to make the payments. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge took note of the fact that the sum of Rs.57.12 Lakhs was paid by the appellant to the respondent on 29th June, 2017 and thereafter the appellant had written the aforesaid emails dated 27th November, 2017, 14th March, 2018 and 20th April, 2018 acknowledging his liability.

11. Furthermore, it is submitted on behalf of the respondent that the two emails dated 22nd September, 2017 and 24th October, 2017 demanding Rs.23 lakhs were sent as they related to only one of the invoices for a sum Rs.23 lakhs, which was due for more than 120 days. But the fact remained that there were two other unpaid invoices amou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document