KANARK ENTERPRISE PVT LTD Vs. UTPAL KALITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Bongaigaon in Money Suit No. 11 of 2006, plaintiff has preferred this appeal.

(2.) Kanark Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. as a Bonded Warehouse is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The Board of Directors authorized one of the Directors Sri Hridayananda Roy Choudhury to institute the suit for realization of money from the defendant Utpal Kalita against sale of India Made Foreign Liquor (for short 'IMFL') and India Made Beer (for short 'IMB') on different dates. The defendant is the owner of a shop of IMFL and IMB and used to purchase these products regularly from the plaintiff. Last payment was made by the defendant on 6.10.2004 against last invoice issued on 5.10.2004. The plaintiff maintained Books of Accounts in regard to the business with the defendant and as per Books of Accounts , plaintiff was entitled to Rs. 5,50,477/- for which demand was made on 7.8.2006 by sending an agent of the plaintiff company. The defendant did not make payment and several requests made thereafter also could not yield any result. Situated thus, plaintiff issued a notice through his lawyer on 11.8.2006 claiming the aforesaid sum of Rs.5,50,477/- along with interest @ 18 % per annum w.e.f. 6.10.2004 till realization. Upon receipt of the notice, defendant sent a reply notice through his lawyer on 2.10.2006 agreeing to pay the amount and requested the plaintiff to pay monthly installment of Rs.5000/- per month. By that notice, defendant also claimed rebate and discount as per various schemes allowed by the Company from time to time. As the defendant did not make payment of the amount claimed by plaintiff, plaintiff instituted the suit in November, 2006 praying for decree of Rs.7,55,530/- including the principal amount and the interest till the date and for further interest @ 18% per annum and the decretal amount w.e.f. 1.11.2006 till realization.

(3.) On being summoned, defendant appeared and submitted written statement broadly denying the averments made in the plaint. However, in para-11 of the written statement giving of reply notice by the defendant has not been denied. On the basis of the aforesaid submission of the parties, learned trial court framed following eleven issues and allowed the parties to prove their respective cases:-