INTERNATIONAL STEEL HOUSE Vs. TAMIL NADU STEELS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED over the judgment and decree, dated 21.08.1989, made in O.S.No.128 of 1986 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee, the defendant has filed this appeal.

(2.) THE case of the first respondent/ plaintiff is that, in due course of business, at the instance of the appellant/defendant, they had supplied 28.230 tonnes of carbon steel rods to the appellant under four invoices, dated 30.06.1983, 16.08.1983, 16.09.1984 and 26.08.1984 under direct credit the appellant failed and neglected to pay the outstanding due under the aforesaid four bills to the tune of Rs.1,83,818.80 as per the statement of accounts, after crediting a sum of Rs.24,000/- in respect of Invoice No.6358 the first respondent sent a reminder dated 05.06.1985 to the appellant giving the details of the bills and the amounts due thereunder at the request of the appellant, they again sent a letter dated 19.06.1985 furnishing a complete statement of accounts showing the outstanding at Rs.1,83,818.80 since the appellant failed to pay the dues despite their reminder and letter, the first respondent caused Advocate's Notice dated 16.11.1985 on the appellant having no response from the appellant, finding no other alternative, the first respondent instituted a suit in O.S.No.128 of 1986 for a direction to the appellant to pay them the outstanding amount of Rs.1,83,818.80 together with interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum till the date of full realization.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant would contend that the trial Court has erred in holding that the appellant is liable to pay the amount due under Exs.A1 and Ex.A2, Bills and it has also erred in assuming that Metro Steel Rolling Mills cannot receive monies from its customers directly and only the Canara Bank is entitled to receive all the payments made to Metro Steel Rolling Mills. He would further contend that the Lower Court has totally ignored the evidence of P.W.1, wherein he admitted in unambiguous terms that they were aware of the discounting facility the Metro Steel Rolling Mills had with Canara Bank and they refused to oblige Canara Bank in making payments to Canara Bank by paying to Metro Steel Rolling Mills and it ought to have held that the conduct of the first respondent in agreeing to adjust the money payable under Exs.A1 and A2 with the account of Metro Steel Rolling Mills would amount to accord and satisfaction of that contract and, therefore, the first respondent is not entitled to claim that amount from the appellant.