SANJIB BANERJEE, J. - (1.) THE plaintiff has applied for judgement on admission primarily on the basis of the ledger accounts for the period of April 1, 2009 to July 24, 2009 as acknowledged by the defendant by affixing its rubber-stamp thereto on August 12, 2009.
(2.) THE plaintiff claims to have supplied TMT bars to the defendants Faridabad construction site. THE plaintiff has relied on the two purchase orders issued by the defendant and the various challan-cum-invoices that the plaintiff raised which the defendant received without any protest. THE plaintiff claims a sum of Rs.1,55,14,191.66 of which a sum of Rs.1,44,81,432.66 was apparently admitted by the defendant to be due to the plaintiff in the ledger accounts. THE remaining sum is claimed on the basis of two cheques issued by the defendant which were dishonoured upon presentation in view of the stop-payment instructions issued by the defendant to its bank. There are several anomalies in the petition which have been pointed out by the defendant. But most of these anomalies are irrelevant in the present context. For example, the petition speaks of two purchase orders and refers to the first of them requiring an amount of one lakh MT TMT bars to be supplied to the defendant. The copy of the first purchase order clearly specifies the quantum to be 300 MT. Again, the plaintiff has said that it supplied the entire complement of TMT bars requisitioned under the two purchase orders by July 3, 2009, but has later on in the petition claimed that since the defendant failed to furnish postdated cheques the plaintiff refused to effect supply of about 458 MT of the 500 MT of goods under the second purchase order. At paragraph 14 of the petition the plaintiff has detailed the payments made by the defendant. Against the total billed amount of Rs.2,11,97,441/-, the defendant is said to have made payment of Rs.56,83,250/- leaving the balance unpaid. The claim in the suit is for such balance price of goods sold and delivered.
(3.) THAT the petition has been prepared without sufficient care is evident from the amount claimed to be due at paragraph 15 thereof. Paragraph 14 of the petition spells out the value of the total supplies effected and the amount paid by the defendant. The billed amount is said to be Rs.2,11,97,441/- and the amount paid by the defendant is said to be Rs.56,83,250/-. But the balance claimed at paragraph 15 is of Rs.1,55,14,191.66p which is inexplicable as neither the billed amount nor the paid amount reflects any fraction of a rupee. The entire basis of the claim founded on the defendants admission is captured in paragraph 18 of the petition: 18. Your petitioner states that all along from time to time the defendant/respondent had acknowledged and/or admitted its liability to pay its dues to the petitioner. In this regard a balance confirmation and/or acknowledgement of the debt as on August 12, 2009 was issued which certified that a total sum of Rs.1,44,81,432.66 remained due and payable to the petitioner by the defendant. A copy of the said balance confirmation and/or acknowledgement as on August 12, 2009 is annexed hereto and marked with the letter F. Your petitioner states that when the said balance confirmation statement was issued, the two post-dated cheques for a sum of Rs.5,02,084/- and Rs.5,30,637/- aggregating to a sum of Rs.10,32,757/- were pending encashment yet the petitioner gave credit for the same while preparing the said statement and/or balance confirmation. As on such date i.e. August 12, 2009 your petitioner did not deposit the said two post-dated cheques stated above as per the request of the defendant. Your petitioner states that the said two post-dated cheques upon being presented for encashment thereafter but were dishonoured due to the reason payment stopped as is morefully stated hereinafter. Thus, the correct position of the balance confirmation statement should read as Rs.1,55,14,191.66 (i.e. Rs.1,44,81,432.66 plus Rs.10,32,757/-).;