OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR AS THE LIQUIDATOR OF M/S.CROWN MARITIME COMPANY (INDIA) PVT.LTD Vs. PRABHA P. SHENAI OF MUMBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge dated 5 February 2009 by which a summary suit instituted under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.) has been decreed as prayed.

(2.) The respondent instituted a suit on the Original Side of this Court on 17 July 1998 against the appellant for the recovery of an amount of Rs.38,73,530.43 together with interest on the principal amount of Rs.25,23,360.00 at the rate of 30% per annum from the date of the institution of the suit till decree and thereafter until payment or realization. The case of the respondent is that on 24 September 1996, the appellant sought a quotation for the supply of M.S.Flanges and BoltNuts. The respondent allegedly furnished its quotation on 27 September 1996. According to the respondent, the appellant accepted the quotation by placing an order on 28 September 1996. The respondent claims to have supplied the material on 5 October 1996 and avers that the invoice was accepted by the appellant by acknowledging the receipt. The respondent issued a notice of demand on 29 June 1998 and thereafter instituted a suit. The decree sought was in the amount of Rs.38,73,530.43 which was inclusive of interest at the rate of 30% per annum on the principal sum of Rs.25,23,360/ as set out in the statement of claim, Exh.F to the plaint. Future interest is claimed also at the same rate of 30% per annum.

(3.) A summons for judgment was taken out in the suit under the provisions of Order 37 of the C.P.C. On 11 August 2003, unconditional leave to defend the suit was granted to the appellant and a written statement was directed to be filed within a period of eight weeks. The written statement was not filed. On 5 February 2009 the suit came up before a learned Single Judge when the advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant was present. The learned Single Judge noted that the original documents were produced and though the appellant had knowledge of the order passed on the summons for judgment and of the previous orders of the court no written statement has been filed. The learned Single Judge on this basis observed as follows: