DEBANGSU BASAK,J. - (1.) BY the instant suit the plaintiff sought to realise the balance of the price of the goods sold and delivered, damages and interest. The Defendant No. 1 was the sole proprietorship concern of the Defendant No. 2.
(2.) THE Defendant No. 2 filed written statement and contested the suit. The plaintiff disclosed documents. The plaintiff examined its accountant as its witness. Few documents were marked as exhibits on behalf of the plaintiff. The witness of the plaintiff was cross -examined on behalf of the Defendant No. 2. In the midst of cross -examination of the witness of the plaintiff, the Defendant No. 2 declined to continue further cross -examination. The Defendant No. 2 declined to adduce any evidence.
(3.) I considered the pleadings of the respective parties and the evidence on record. The plaintiff was a Government of West Bengal undertaking. The main purpose of the plaintiff was to help small scale manufacturing units by providing various facilities including supply of materials and finance. The plaintiff wanted to help the defendants by supplying materials on credit. The evidence on behalf of the plaintiff disclosed that, the plaintiff allowed the defendants to lift materials on credit. This credit arrangement was made by the then Managing Director of the plaintiff. Grant of credit facilities was the sole domain of the Managing Director of the plaintiff. The defendants utilised such credit facilities. The defendants lifted materials from the plaintiff. The defendants made part payments towards discharge of their liability. From several letters written by the defendants it would be clear that the defendants were making over post dated cheques while taking delivery of the goods. In some of the letter the defendants stated that they were agreeable to pay interest and that in the event the cheques were dishonoured the plaintiff was at liberty to take steps for the dishonour of the cheques.;