PARAS LUBRICANTS LTD Vs. NARESH KUMAR BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a suit for recovery of Rs 1,18,36,418/-. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant was appointed as a consignment stockiest for its products for the region of Punjab and an agreement dated 01.01.2003 was executed between the parties in this regard at Delhi. Pursuant to the aforesaid agreement, the defendant used to place order upon the plaintiff, which used to supply material to him from time to time on credit basis. A sum of Rs 87,61,790/- was due to the plaintiff from the defendant, when payment of Rs 50,000/- was made by way of security, thereby leaving a balance sum of Rs 87,11,790/- as the principal sum due from him. The defendant made last payment of Rs 8,521/- vide demand draft dated 23.04.2005. Thereafter, no payment was made by him. This payment of Rs 8,521/- was made before payment of Rs 50,000/- by way of security. The plaintiff has, therefore, now claimed Rs 87,11,790/- as principal sum and Rs 31,24,628/- as interest for the pre-suit period at the rate of 12% per annum. It is alleged in the plaint that as per agreement between the parties contained in the invoices, the defendant was liable to pay interest at the rate of 24% per annum, whereas interest was payable at the rate of 18% per annum as per the terms of the agreement dated 01.01.2003.

(2.) THE defendant was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 15.05.2009. The plaintiff has filed affidavit of two witnesses by way of ex parte evidence. In his affidavit by way of evidence, Shri A.K. Mukherjee, Deputy General Manager of the plaintiff-company has stated that the agreement Ex.PW-1/3 was entered into by the parties at Delhi on 01.01.2003. He has further stated that after his appointment as consignment stockiest, the defendant used to place orders upon the plaintiff- company from time to time for supply of materials and the plaintiff used to supply that material to him on credit basis as per his requirement and specifications. He has further stated that the plaintiff-company used to raise invoices upon the defendant towards supply of material and it was also maintaining the proper books of account with respect to the goods sold to the defendant and payment made by him. Ex. PW-1/4 and PW-1/5 are two invoices in respect of the material delivered on 04.05.2005 and 05.05.2005 respectively. He has further stated that a sum of Rs 87,61,790/- had become due from the defendant after giving credit for the payments received from him. According to him, the defendant through one Bimla Devi provided security of Rs 50,000/- to the plaintiff. This amount was liable to be forfeited in the event of failure of the defendant to make payment. Since the defendant failed to clear the dues of the plaintiff, the aforesaid amount was adjusted against the amount payable by him, thereby leaving a principal sum of Rs 87,11,790/- due from the defendant to the plaintiff. He has also proved the notices sent to the defendant, which are Ex. PW1/6 and PW1/8 and were sent/served vide postal receipts PW1/7 and PW1/9 and certificate of posting Ex. PW1/10.

(3.) EX.PW-1/1 is the Memorandum and Article of Association of the plaintiff- company, whereas Ex.PW-1/2 is the copy of Board Resolution, whereby Mr Paras Bansal and Mr A.K. Mukherjee were authorised to institute suits for recovery of dues from the defendant and take all other necessary legal steps in this regard. They were also authorized to sign and verify the pleadings on behalf of the plaintiff-company.