AAR ESS AND CO Vs. RATHI UDYOG LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal (RFA) filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 20.07.2006 decreeing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff filed under Order 37 CPC for recovery of Rs. 10,41,945/-. The suit was filed for recovery of moneys on account of appellants/defendants failing to make payments of the goods namely Tor Steel Bars supplied to it by the respondent/plaintiff. The facts of the case are that the appellants/defendants placed orders dated 15.03.2002 and 18.03.2002 upon the respondent/plaintiff for supply of Tor Steel Bars. Appellant No. 2/defendant No. 2 is the sole proprietor of appellant No. 1/defendant No. 1. The respondent/plaintiff supplied the requisite Tor Steel Bars under its invoices dated 22.03.2002. Since the payment with respect to the two invoices of Rs. 5,49,739/- and Rs. 4,09,416.50/-were not made, and consequently, the subject suit for recovery under Order 37 CPC came to be filed.

(2.) In the leave to defend application, the appellants/defendants contended that the respondent/plaintiff is not entitled to the amount under invoices dated 22.3.2002, inasmuch as, the invoices were not accompanied by the requisite test certificates which were specified in para 5 of the orders dated 15.03.2002 and 18.03.2002. It was also stated that though the appellants/defendants had given post dated cheques, which were dishonoured, however, payment under the cheques were not to be made, inasmuch as, the goods which were supplied did not meet the requisite quality specifications. To the stand of the respondent/plaintiff, that the appellants/defendants had written its letter dated 21.06.2002 admitting to the issuing of cheques and requesting time for payment, it was contended that though the letter dated 21.06.2002 contained the signatures of appellant No. 2/defendant No. 2, however, that letter was a letter signed in blank given to an employee of the appellants/defendants and who had misused that letter and gave the same to the respondent/plaintiff.

(3.) Trial court has rejected the application for leave to defend by making the following observations:-