INDIAN RAYON AND INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. SIROHYA ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS summons for Judgment is taken out by the plaintiffs in Summary Suit to recover a sum of Rs. 85,280. 00 being the balance of the price of goods sold and supplied by the plaintiffs to the defendants and interest thereon.

(2.) THE plaintiffs' case is that by nine contracts evidenced in writing, they sold and supplied to the defendants goods consisting of grey yarn as per quality, price, quantities, rates etc. as specified in each contract. The particulars of these are shown in tabulated form in para 2 of the Plaint. The suit claim is in respect of nine Bills/challans.

(3.) THE defence sought to be raised are as follows :in respect of the items mentioned at Sr. Nos. l, 2 and 6 of para 2 of the Plaint, the amount shown as credit by the plaintiffs is higher than the amount actually paid by the defendants to the plaintiffs. In respect of the bill at Sr. No. 1 there was a rate difference of Rs. 250. 00, discount of Rs. 495. 00, brokerage of Rs. 125. 00 and quality claim Rs. 2,000. 00. The plaintiffs therefore ought to give credit for Rs. 2,870. 00. the balance of Rs. 21,872. 24 has been paid by cheque. The plaintiffs have wrongly shown payment of a higher amount, namely, Rs. 22,056,56. In respect of the bill at Sr. No. 2 the plaintiffs were to compensate the defendants for Rs. 3,370. 00 being the total of (i) difference in rate amounting to Rs. 250. 00, (ii) discount at 2% amounting to Rs. 495. 00, (iii) brokerage amounting to Rs. 125. 00 and (iv) quality claim amounting to Rs. 2,500. 00. In respect of the third Bill (Bill at Sr. No. 6 of para 2 of the Plaint) the plaintiffs were to compensate defendants for a total amount of Rs. 3,370. 00 on account of deductions similar to the other two Bills. Now there is nothing in the Bills or Challans or in the written documents to substantiate the defendants' contentions. Further these said transactions took place in February/march 1987 and such a contention was never raised by the defendants until the plaintiffs served upon them a demand notice in 1989. Therefore, although it can be said that the defendants have raised triable issue, certainly they have not raised a substantial defence.