METTUR BEARDSELL LIMITED Vs. SALEM TEXTILE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First defendant in O.S. No. 999 of 1984 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem, aggrieved by the decree for Rs.3,37,662-47 with interest thereon against all the defendants, preferred the above appeal before this Court.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff as set out in the plaint is briefly stated hereunder :- The plaintiff has been supplying yarn to the first defendant between 21-6-1982 and 12-4-1983. As on 12-4-1983 the sum due to the plaintiff from the first defendant was Rs.3,74,299.37. After subsequent payments, the ultimate balance due on account of the transaction is Rs.3,30,258-64. The plaintiff has been repeatedly writing letters to the first defendant to pay the amount and the first defendant has been sending amounts to the plaintiff. They sent a sum of Rs.86,793-39 on 31-8-1982, Rs.59,451-20 on 24-9-1982 and Rs.1,14,054.93 on 13-10-1982 and Rs.66,987-78 on 16-11-1982. On 17-12-1982 they had written a letter to the plaintiff mentioning their requirement for January, 1983. On 14-12-1982 they sent Rs.1,48,388-06 by demand draft. On 15-3-1983 the plaintiff wrote to the first defendant confirming the sending of a telegram as follows :-

(3.) The first defendant alone filed a written statement wherein it is stated that the third defendant had taken over the assets and liabilities of the Thread Unit at Mettur with effect from 1-1-1983. On and from 31-12-1982, the first defendant ceased to carry on the business of the Thread Unit. The plaintiff was fully aware of this change. On and from 1-1-1983 the first defendant had not placed any order and received any goods or made payment. All orders were placed by the other defendants, goods were suplied only to the other defendants from whom payments were accepted by the plaintiff. As on 31-12-1982, the statement of account showed a nil balance. There was no liability on it at the time of transfer and the liabilities were created by the other defendants with the plaintiff and the plaintiff has willingly supplied to the other defendants, the plaintiff is estopped at this point of time from claiming any amount from the first defendant. On 21-4-1983, the third defendant had interview the plaintiff that they have taken over the company. Payments were made by the third defendant. The plaintiff had accepted these payments unconditionally. There was no protest while receiving the payment. On 16-9-1983, the first defendant had again advised the plaintiff about the taking over by the third defendant who had undertaken to pay. Even after all these, the plaintiff had supplied goods under Invoice No.781 dated 27-9-1983 to the third defendant and would pretend as though it had no knowledge of what had happened. The plaintiff having had full knowledge of the transfer of business as and from 1-1-1983, having supplied goods to 3rd defendant and received payment from 3rd defendant, the first defendant is not liable to answer the suit claim as the plaintiff had recognised the transfer and agreed to deal with the third defendant independently and without any recourse to the first defendant. There is no agreement for payment of interest much less at 21 per cent per annum. Therefore, the claim of interest at 21 per cent or at any other rate is illegal, unwarranted and unenforceable.