- (1.) This is an application seeking judgment on admission. The sum claimed is Rs. 15, 14, 296A. This sum represents the principal amount of Rs. 9, 80, 057/- claimed in the plaint together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from 21st January, 2009 till 30th April, 2011, amounting to Rs. 5, 34, 869/-. The sum claimed as interest, in the plaint is Rs. 1, 36, 617/-, being interest claimed at the same rate for the period 21st January, 2009 till 31st July, 2009. Therefore, the total amount claimed in the plaint as principal sum and the amount on which judgment is sought now, on the basis of admission, are the same. The claim arises out of an agreement dated 8th December, 2008 between the parties. The plaintiff was required to supply water proofing materials of different description and quantity to the defendant. These materials were Tarfelt Fibre Glazed, Shalikote Type-32, Bitumen 30 40 gr, Bitumen 90/15 gr. They were to be supplied in four phases and completed by 2009. There is no dispute that goods were supplied by the plaintiff and were received by the defendant. The invoice raised by the plaintiff was for Rs. 9,80,363/-.
(2.) The defendant made over a cheque for Rs. 9,80,057/- dated 1st January, 2009 in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff on or about 12th January, 2009 presented the cheque for encashment but it was dishonoured on the ground that payment had been stopped by the defendant.
(3.) Now, it appears that the defendant was procuring these goods to in turn supply them to the Eastern Railway Administration. The plaintiff approached the Public Information Officer of the Eastern Railways under the Right to Information Act. The Public Information Officer sought information from the Divisional Town Engineer, Eastern Railway, Kanchrapara. The latter by his communication dated 18th June, 2009 to the Public Information Officer, inter alia, said that 359 rolls of Tarfelt Fibre were passed by the railways subject to "testing result of recognised institute". Item No. 6 of the letter stated that substantial amounts had been paid to the defendant. At the time of hearing of this application, it was not disputed by the learned Counsel for the defendant that they had received the above invoice amount from the railways.;