BEACON ELECTRONICS Vs. SYLVANIA AND LAXMAN LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff filed suit under the provision of Order XXXVII CPC, inter alia, alleging that it is a partnership firm duly registered under the Indian Partnership Act and Prashant Mendiratta, who signed and verified the plaint and instituted the suit, is one of the partners thereof. Plaintiff has been carrying business of manufacture and supply of tubelight chokes, fittings and fixtures for the last more than 28 years. On Ashok Aggarwal, managing director of the defendant-company, approaching the plaintiff in or around 1993, the plaintiff agreed to supply aforesaid goods to the defendant on credit basis for a specified period of 45 days. In case the payment was delayed, it was expressly agreed that interest @ 24% per annum will be paid by the defendant for the period of default in payment. Plaintiff supplied the aforesaid goods which were duly received by the defendant against bills/challans over a period from September 1993 to August 21, 1995. It is alleged that as the volume of business increased defendant started committing defaults in making the payment by the due dates. In para 10 details of the outstanding bills have been given as below:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_439_DRJ45_1998Html1.htm</FRM>

(2.) Aforesaid bills amount to a written contract between the parties. It is further alleged that the defendant-company issued three cheques Nos.629473 dt.8.11.95 for Rs.56,412.00 , 629474 dt.9.11.95 for Rs.62,128.00 and 314907 dt.22.11.95 for Rs.48,720.00 . By cheques Nos.314907 & 629474 defendant purported to make full payments of bills No.114, 130 & 100. By cheque No.629473 it purported to make full payment of bill No.115 and part payment of bill No.80 for Rs.29,170.00 . On presentation all these three cheques were dishonoured by the Punjab National Bank, Tropical Building, New Delhi. In addition to the aforementioned amount of Rs.21,22,029.00 , a sum of Rs.12,70,652/49P has been claimed towards interest @ 24% per annum from the due dates till November 15, 1996. Total amount whereof the recovery is sought by the plaintiff against the defendant is Rs.33,92,681/49P including the interest.

(3.) By filing the affidavit dated April 5, 1997 of Ashok Aggarwal, managing director of the company, defendant has sought the leave to defend the suit and condone the delay in seeking the leave to contest. In the affidavit it is averred that the defendant received the summons for judgment on March 19, 1997 and it was handed over to the counsel for taking appropriate action in the matter. Since the wife of the counsel became seriously ill the affidavit could not be filed within the statutory time. It is stated that office block, cost section, store room and basement of the defendant's factory situated at 68/1-3, Najafgarh Road, were sealed by the District Collection Officer, Tis Hazari, Delhi on August 26, 1996, in connection with the recovery of Rs.65,94,868/50P allegedly due towards wages of the workers who are on illegal strike since April 1996. Against the said illegal recovery the defendant-company filed Civil Writ No.3375/96 and in C.M.No.5883/96 a status quo order in respect of the recovery has been passed by this Court on September 3, 1996. Status quo order still continues to be in operation. It is stated that due to non-availability of the records because of sealing of the aforesaid portions of the defendant's factory it is unable to find out the exact position of the claim of the plaintiff. Defendant does not accept a single paise claim of the plaintiff as well as the bills on which the suit claim is based and the cheques which were dishonoured. It is denied that interest @ 24% per annum was agreed to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff.