- (1.) For the reasons mentioned in the applications, delay in re-filing the appeals is condoned. Applications stand disposed of accordingly. CM No. 11242-C of 2012 in RSA No. 4097 of 2012 Application is allowed. Deficiency in filing the appeal is made good. Main appeals By this order, the above mentioned two regular second appeals are being disposed of. The facts are taken from RSA No. 4097 of 2012. Defendant is in second appeal against the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. The civil suit No. 99 titled M/s. Trident Packaging Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Hanil Era Textile Ltd. was filed for recovery of Rs. 9,23,789/- on the ground that defendant placed an order for supply of corrugated boxes and the same we're supplied to the defendant. Business transactions and account statements were duly maintained regarding, the material supplied to the defendant. Part payment was made by the defendant but an outstanding amount of Rs. 5,49,417/- was claimed/due and in this context, the plaintiff called upon the defendant vide letter dated 30.9.1999 to confirm the principal and balance amount as per the statement of account, but the defendant, despite receiving the same, did not reply. Hence, the suit was filed, which has been opposed by the defendant thereby taking all customary pleas of jurisdiction, limitation and the suit being barred having not been filed by an authorised person.
(2.) On merits, it has been denied that the plaintiff is a private company and Sh. R.K. Talwar is its Managing Director. Learned trial Court, after framing necessary issues, invited evidence from both the parties. Issues No. 1, 2, 5 (a) and 5 (b) were taken together and the learned trial Court discussed the evidence in detail and after lawful appreciation of evidence on record, the learned trial Court held that the plea of the defendant that the material supplied to it was defective is not borne on record for want of evidence to that effect. There is nothing on record to show that the defendant had ever rejected the material so supplied or had intimated the plaintiff regarding rejection of the material supplied by the plaintiff and the defendant could not bring any evidence to show that the material supplied was not utilised by the defendant. The material supplied was never objected to or rejected nor any communication was ever served upon the plaintiff. In view of this, it has been observed by the learned trial Court that the defendant cannot be absolved from its liability to make payment against the goods supplied to it by the plaintiff. Secondly, the learned trial Court on the aspect of plaintiff not being a private company as alleged, has observed that the memorandum of articles of the association, Ex. P-23, includes the certificates of incorporation, wherein, name of Virender Kumar Mehta is mentioned as one of the founder director. Therefore, Virender Kumar Mehta had the authority to file the suit and depose before the Court as PW-1.
(3.) PW-2 has proved the resolution, authorizing Sh. R.K. Talwar, Managing Director to file the present suit against the defendant. Learned trial Court has appreciated the evidence and ultimately come to the conclusion that the suit has been filed by the authorised person and decreed the suit with future interest of 6%, after placing reliance upon Section 5 of Interest on Delayed payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993. According to which the supplier is entitled to compound interest being paid on delayed payment.;