NIZAM COAL PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. R.S.EXPORTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit is filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,38,90,300/- along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the sum of Rs.1,36,17,942/- from the date of plaint till the date of realization and for costs.

(2.) The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are as follows: The first defendant is a registered company. The plaintiff is a group of companies who are suppliers of coal. The first defendant placed a trial purchase order with the plaintiff on 07.11.2012 for a quantity of 300 MTs. The second defendant held out that he is a man of substantial means and the plaintiff could rely on the credit worthiness and extend credit facilities to the first defendant. Accordingly, the defendants have purchased coal as per their various purchase orders. However, the first defendant committed default in the month of August and sought time for payment of money and issued cheques. Subsequently, all the cheques were dishonoured. As the the purchase orders were placed on 12.12.2012, the first defendant also brought down the liability to around Rs.1,00,00,000/- on or before the end of June, 2013. Besides, they also confirmed the balance outstanding as on 31.01.2013. The defendants are due of Rs.1,36,17,942/- as on 07.12.2013. In this regard, the plaintiff also issued legal notice to the defendants. Hence, this suit has been filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,36,17,942/ with interest at the rate of 24%.

(3.) The brief averments of the written statement filed by the second defendant : It is the case of the second defendant that he has not given any guarantee to the plaintiff. It the contention of the defendant that the alleged confirmation of balance statement of accounts is not correct. In fact, there was a variance in quality of the sample supplied and the materials supplied. In view of the quality difference, the purchaser has refused to make payment. Anticipating their payment, the defendant had issued post dated cheques for the purpose of security alone. The difference in quality was supplied with the knowledge of the plaintiff. The alleged confirmation of balance was prior to the adjustment of the debit notes. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.