Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. - (1.) This summons has been taken out for, final judgement for a sum of Rs. 39, 16,612/-. The plaintiffs case is that pursuant to the orders placed in between 29th July, 2000 and 30th November, 2000 the plaintiff sold, supplied and delivered substantial quantity of ball bearing to the defendant who is the retailer on the terms and conditions; (a) the petitioner will supply the goods to the respondent at 3% S.T. relief on list price; (b) payments to be made within 45 days. If payments made within 7 days will entitle the purchaser to 3% cash discount and, if made within 30 days will entitle the purchaser to a cash discount of 2%. The bills were raised for the supply of the goods and the same have been received by the defendant. After giving adjustment of the payments made, there remains due a sum of Rs. 26,31,616.96 p. on account of principal and a sum of Rs. 12,84,993.53p. on account of interest.
(2.) The defendant in his affidavit admitted that there has been dealings and transactions for sale and supply of the goods and the same were received pursuant to the orders placed by it. It is said, however, that the defendant did not receive any goods under the invoices as alleged in the plaint in between 29th July, 2000 and November, 20, 2000 except the quantity despatched by the invoices nos. EC 20000270 dated 29th July, 2000, EC 20000310 dated 31st August, 2000 and EC 20000380 dated 31st August, 2000. It is further stated in the affidavit the goods covered by other invoices annexed to the plaints were never received. The signature of the person who is said to have received purportedly on behalf of the defendant is not the person of the defendant firm. Actually the defendant is the sole proprietary business and there was no scope to sign on the invoices by any person as a partner. Therefore, the invoices are obviously manufactured and fabricated documents. The defendant has paid the price of goods received under the aforesaid three invoices to the extent of the same being payable and the balance has been adjusted against the claim of the defendants.
(3.) Mr. Pratap Chatterjee, Learned Senior Counsel, appearing in support of the Motions submits that the "defence stated in the affidavit-in-opposition should not be believed at all by reason of the fact that the goods during the aforesaid relevant period were despatched by the same method and process by raising and sending invoices as it was done in case of despatch and delivery of the goods of the quantity admittedly received by the defendant. He submits that the admitted invoices are also signed by the same person affixing the same seal. Upon comparison of the seal, and signature of the persons appearing in other invoices with the admitted ones no discrepancy or difference can be found.;