MADURA COATS LIMITED Vs. DUNLOP INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This summons has been taken out by the plaintiff for recording final judgment under Chapter XIIIA of the original Side Rules of this Court. This application is arising out of a suit for recovery of the price of diverse quantities and qualities and specifications of dipped yarn, nylon tyre cord, dipped chafers etc. sold, delivered to the defendant. The sale and supply was made prior to 1996 till 1998 and thereafter from April, 2000 to May, 2001. The bills were raised and accepted. No objection was raised. Time to time part payment was made. After adjusting part payment made by the defendant there is due and owing an aggregate sum of Rs. 3,61,54,627.54p. on account of principal and sum of Rs. 2,48,66,609.75p. on account of interest calculated from respective due dates till 28th February, 1998. However, taking into consideration of the sale and supply made during subsequent period between April, 2000 and May, 2001 the dues of the plaintiff rose up to Rs. 7,51,86,994.27p. The plaintiff initiated winding up proceedings. However, the same could not be proceeded in view of the defendant making reference under the provision of Section 15 (1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA), before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR). The reference failed in view of dismissal by the BIFR. The defendant has taken this matter to Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (AAIFR). In the appeal the proposal for revival scheme was allowed. The BIFR sanctioned a scheme for revival providing for various packages including the payment of the plaintiffs dues. The plaintiff, therefore, approached for enforcement of this claim before the appropriate forum or for payment, if possible. In the scheme the defendant has provided for payment of a sum of Rs. 2.03 crore and the rest of the balance claim viz. 3,61,54,627.54p. was allowed by granting leave to be recovered in accordance with law. Hence, the suit has been filed by the plaintiff for recovery of above portion leaving the balance portion for recovery under the scheme.

(2.) The plaintiff says that the defendant has no defence as the entire amount of Rs. 6,10,21,237.29p. together with interest at the rate of 19.5% per annum with effect from 1st March, 1995 has been acknowledged by the appropriate officers of the defendant.

(3.) In the affidavit-in-opposition, in fact, there has been no substantial defence to the claim of the plaintiff. The aforesaid fact of granting leave by the AAIFR for recovery of the amount of Rs. 3 crore and odd is admitted and there is no scope for denial. It is also admitted that a portion of the claim amounting to Rs. 2 crores and odd has been provided for payment in the scheme.