Allowed

M/S. Forward Leather Co. Anr. v. M/S. Anz Trading Pvt. Ltd.

Bombay HC9 Apr 2007SJ/93/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In suit for contract dispute, the Court decreed the plaintiff's claim regarding supply of shoes. The defendant's defense of interest rate was noted. Leave to defend was denied due to undisputed allegations, and a decree was passed awarding interest at 9% p.a.

What did the court decide?

A decree was passed in favor of the plaintiff with the modification that interest is awarded at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of institution of the suit until payment or realization.

M/S. Forward Leather Co. Anr. Vs M/S. Anz… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

O. O. C. J.

¶4

SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 93 OF 2007 IN

¶5

SUMMARY SUIT NO.3543 OF 2006

¶6

M/s. Forward Leather Company & Anr. ..Plaintiffs. Vs.

¶7

M/s. ANZ Trading Private Limited ..Defendant.

¶8

Ms. Ranguta Menon i/b Anil Menon for the Plaintiffs. Mr. M.B. Jadhav with Bhupendra Singh for the Defendant.

¶9

CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

¶10

9th April, 2007.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

In pursuance of a Memorandum of Understanding, the Defendant placed a purchase order upon the Plaintiff for the supply of

¶13

a consignment of shoes of a total value of Rs.34,85,592/-. The order

¶14

was executed by the Plaintiff under six invoices between 3^rd October

¶15

and 31^st October, 2003. Each of the invoices is stated to have been

¶16

accompanied by a delivery note/ gate pass. After receiving a total of 2378 pairs of shoes, the Defendant returned 1345 pairs valued at

¶17

¶18

Rs.19,73,115/- The total value, inclusive of central sales tax computed at the rate of 4%, of the returned goods was Rs.20,52,039. The amount due and payable in respect of the consignment sold, supplied and delivered was therefore reduced to Rs.10,98,300/-. On 30^th November, 2005, the Defendant in response to the Plaintiff' s letter dated 24^th November, 2005 sought time to commence making payments of the outstandings stating that the Defendant was facing a serious financial position.

¶19

There is no reply to the Summons for Judgment though the Defendant has entered appearance. The only submission which has been urged is that the Plaintiff has claimed interest at the rate of 24% per annum though that is not provided for in the invoices. The material allegations in the Plaint have not been disputed. The amount of Rs.10,98,330/- as per the particulars of claim at Exh. E to the Plaint is exclusive of interest. In my view, it would be appropriate and proper that the Plaintiff is awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the principal amount of the invoices as aforesaid from the

¶20

¶21

date of the suit until payment or realization. The Defendant having failed to make out any case entitling him to leave to defend under Order 37, the Plaintiff would be entitled to a decree as prayed, save with the aforesaid modification. The claim of the Plaintiff falls within the purview of the order 37. There is no dispute about the fact that the goods in respect of which the dispute has been founded have been duly received by the Defendant. The suit shall accordingly stand decreed in terms of prayer clause (a) with the modification that the Plaintiff will be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the institution of the suit until the date of the decree and at the same rate from the date of the decree until payment or realization.

¶22

The Plaintiff would be entitled to the costs of the suit.

M/S. Forward Leather Co. Anr. v. M/S. Anz Trading Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Forward Leather Co. Anr. v. M/S. Anz Trading Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yezdi K. Irani and Anr. Vs Rustom Sorab Irani and Ors.

M/S. Volgadelite Plastic Udyog Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Ram India Consumer Products (P) Ltd.

Kantilal C. Jain Vs Tme Plasmettronics Pvt. Ltd.

Ashok M. Vanigota Vs Fabtech Technologies International Pvt. Ltd.

Mahindra and Mahindra Limited Vs M/S. Bharat Auto Stores and Anr.

Gokul Petro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kirit Patel