LAWS(MAD)-2003-7-182

HYBRO CHAINS PVT LTD Vs. ASIL INDUSTRIES LTD

Decided On July 30, 2003
HYBRO CHAINS PVT.LTD. Appellant
V/S
ASIL INDUSTRIES LTD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the defendant in the suit O.S.No.7280 of 2000 on the file of the XV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.34,504.90 towards principal and interest by the petitioner/defendant.

(2.) The brief facts of the plaint are as follows:- The plaintiff is a manufacturer of steel strips. On 11.11.1997 under Invoice No.333/97-98, rolled steel strips for the value of Rs.20,297/- were supplied to the defendant and as per the terms of payment, seven days credit was also allowed. The defendant failed to pay the amount within seven days from the date of invoice, and he issued a cheque to the plaintiff on 28.01.2000. When presented, the cheque bounced with an endorsement insufficient funds on 10.05.2000. A statutory notice was issued to the defendant and its Director on 25.05.2000 demanding the payment of above referred cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The defendant sent a belated replay on 10.07.2000, wherein he not only admitted the dishonour of the cheque, but also denied his liability to pay the entire suit amount. Hence the suit for recovery of Rs.20,297/- towards principal amount of value of the goods sold and interest at 24% p.a. which works out to Rs.14,207.90 from 11.11.1997 to 10.10.2000 and thus, a total sum of Rs.34,504.90.

(3.) The defendant filed I.A.No.14523 of 2001 under Order 37 Rule 4 C.P.C. praying for grant of leave to defend the suit, wherein he has mentioned that the plaintiff had supplied defective materials and not according to the specifications of the order of purchase and as such the plaintiff was asked to take back the materials, that cheque dated 28.01.2000 was not honoured by the defendant, that as for as the statutory notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is concerned, the defendant has sent a reply denying his liability, and that the plaintiff is not entitled for interest at the rate of 24% p.a., since there was no contract in this regard, and if at all the plaintiff can claim interest from the date of decree under Section 34 C.P.C.