Allowed

Shree Khodiyar Textiles Mills Pvt.Ltd. v. Shree Lalit Fabrics Pvt. Ltd.

Bombay HC21 Apr 2014S/316/1994

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex parte suit for recovery of alleged textile purchases, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay granted a decree against the unopposed defendant. The court awarded the principal amount with modified interest rates, rejecting the claimed 24% rate in favor of 12% simple interest.

What did the court decide?

Decree for recovery of Rs. 75,92,721/- plus 12% simple interest from filing and further 12% simple interest from decree date.

1.The plaintiffs are a company carrying on business as clock manufacturers in Bombay. The defendant, also a company, has its office at Amritsar and a sales office at Faridabad, Haryana. The defendant is a dealer in suit and shirt materials and dyeing fabrics.

2.The plaintiffs seek a recovery of Rs.1,38,31,899.89 from the defendant. The defendant has been duly served. It has not entered appearance nor filed its written statement. The suit is listed for ex- parte decree. The plaintiffs have filed an affidavit of evidence and the list of documents along with a compilation. Further examination in chief hass also been completed. The documents tendered are marked as “Exhibit P-1” collectively in evidence. The original documents

3.The evidence of plaintiffs deposed to by their Managing Director, one Purushottam M. Patel, is that the plaintiffs and defendant had have dealings for several orders. The defendant would place orders on the plaintiffs on various times through the defendant’s agent in Mumbai, M/s. Jagruti Trading Company. During 1990-92, the defendant so placed diverse orders with the plaintiffs for purchase of grey colour fabric of the plaintiffs’ manufacture. The plaintiffs sold, supplied and delivered the required goods to the defendant and raised corresponding invoices. The defendant made periodic payments against some of the invoices. Others remain unpaid, in the amount of Rs.75,92,721/- despite repeated attempts.

4.The plaintiffs, by their Advocate’s letter dated 28th June 1992 called on the defendant to pay this amount with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. A copy of that letter is in evidence. In response, the defendant’s Advocates stated that the Company had been delcared sick in the provisions of the Sick Industrial (Special Provisions) Act, 1986 and denied liability.

5.In paragraph 8 of his evidence affidavit, the plaintiff’s witness has pointed out that the defendant was ordered to be wound up and the Official Liquidator attached to the Punjab & Haryana High Court was appointed as its liquidator. The plaintiffs sought leave to proceed with the suit by adding the Official Liquidator as party to the suit. By an order dated 20th April 2012, the defendant was revived subject to certain conditions. A copy of that order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court has been produced in evidence. The High Court granted the plaintiffs liberty to proceed with its present suit. Despite this, the defendant has not entered appearance.

6.There is no defence to the suit. The plaintiff is entitled to a decree. The principal amount under the invoices is Rs. 75,92,721/-. The plaintiff is entitled to interest on this amount, not as claimed at the rate of 24% per annum, but at the rate of 12% per annum (simple interest) from the date of filing of the suit till the date of the decree, and further together with further simple interest on the principal amount of Rs.75,92,721/- at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the decree till payment or realisation.

Shree Khodiyar Textiles Mills Pvt.Ltd. v. Shree Lalit Fabrics Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shree Khodiyar Textiles Mills Pvt.Ltd. v. Shree Lalit Fabrics 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

Alok Knit Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs 0

Bhagya Laxmi Fashion Pvt. Ltd. Vs 0

Apt Financial and Capital Services Private Limited Vs -

The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corpn. Ltd. Vs Canbank Financial Services Ltd.

Goan Hospitality Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Vs Elel Hotels and Investments Ltd. and Ors.

Mrs. Havovi Zubin Pastakia Vs Mr. Zubin Zarsis Pastakia