RAMESH Vs. IMPERIAL TUBES PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a suit for recovery of price of goods sold and delivered, the plaintiff by this application, seeks a judgment and decree for admission for a sum of Rs.5,79,58,608/- and an order of injunction on the defendant.

(2.) Learned senior advocate appearing for the plaintiff submits that, pursuant to orders placed by the defendant from time to time the plaintiff sold and delivered diverse goods to the defendant. The plaintiff from time to time raised invoices upon the defendant. The goods and the invoices of the plaintiff were accepted without any demur. The defendant made on account of payments from time to time to the plaintiff. The parties prepared statement of accounts of the transactions and confirmed the outstanding at the end of the Financial Year. He draws the attention of the Court to the confirmation of accounts executed by the parties dated April 1, 2016, April 1, 2017 and April 1, 2018. He submits that, by the confirmation of accounts stated in April 1, 2018, the defendant acknowledged a sum of Rs.5,88,06,294/- to be due and payable to the plaintiff. Subsequent thereto, the plaintiff sold and delivered goods and raised two invoices for the same. The defendant made a part payment of Rs.30 lakhs. Taking into account those transactions subsequent to April 1, 2018, a sum of Rs.5,79,58,608/- became due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff as on August 11, 2018. He submits that, although the statement of account dated August 11, 2018 is not signed by the parties, the transactions reflected therein are not denied by the parties and that, the same inures to the benefit of the defendant in as much as it gives credit to the amount paid by the defendant subsequent to April, 2018 as well. He points out that, taking the account position as on August 11, 2018, the liability of the defendant stands reduced.

(3.) Referring to the affidavits filed by the parties, learned senior advocate appearing for the plaintiff submits that, although the defendant seeks to raise an issue of inferior supplies being effected by the plaintiff, the same was not raised contemporaneously. The defendant did not point out contemporaneously the portions of the supplies that were inferior. The defendant continued to place orders and make part payments despite the supply of the so-called inferior quality goods. He submits that, the defence of inferior quality supply is moonshine. Even in the affidavit in opposition, the defendant did not specify the portions of the supplies that were of inferior quality. Therefore, he submits that, the defence sought to be taken by the defendant should not be countenanced.