Sat Pal ( 1 ) THIS is a suit for recovery of Rs. l,20,lll. 00 with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 13. 5% per annum. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY the facts of the case as mentioned in the plaint are that the plaintiff is a limited company incorporated under the Companies Act,1913 having its registered office at Kasturi Building, Jamshedji Tata Road, Bombay and Regional/administrative Office at Bhandari House, 91, Nehru Place, New Delhi and is engaged in the business of Refrigerators and other allied goods/ equipments/machinery at Delhi and at several other places in India. Shri B. K. Malhotra who has signed and verified the plaint is the Vice-President and General Attorney/principal Officer of the plaintiff company. ( 3 ) IT is further stated in the plaint that the defendant No. l is a partnership concern and defendants 2 and 3 are the partners of defendant No. l. It is then stated that the defendants had placed an order with the plaintiff for supply or two numbers Multi Spline Thread Milling Machine Model ZFWVG 250 X 1250 and ZFWVG 250 x 2000 with special accessories vide their letter dated 17th September,1982, upon which the plaintiff had allowed a discount of 3% and the defendants had agreed to pay Rs. 8,70,376. 00 and paid an advance of s. 80,000/ - to the plaintiff. The aforesaid machines alongwith the accessories were duly supplied by the plaintiff to the defendants and the defendants obtain the delivery of the said machines from the transporter without handing over the consignee s copy. It is stated that in the meantime, the custom duty had increased and two separate bills were raised as under:- 1) Bill No: 99/sp-699/005 dated 1. 9. 83 for Rs. 4,53,609. 52 2) Bill No. 99/700/sp/005 dated 1. 9. 83 for Rs. 4,76,509. 28 ( 4 ) IT is then stated that as per the terms and conditions agreed to between the parties, the defendants were required to make payment to the plaintiff at the time of the delivery of the goods and the defendants were liable to pay interest to the plaintiff on delayed payment. The defendants, however, vide their letter dated llth October,1983 requested the plaintiff for indulgence by granting time for making payment on the ground that their loan from Delhi Financial. The defendants, however, vide their letter dated llth October,1983 requested the plaintiff for indulgence by granting time for making payment on the ground that their loan from Delhi Financial. Corporation had not been received and they undertook to pay interest on the outstanding amount from llth October,1983 onwards at the rate of 13. 5% per annum, it has also been stated in the plaint that the plaintiff by their letter dated 22nd March,1984 had informed the defendants that all these machines had been imported on the stock and sale license of the plaintiff and licences are channelised through the Projects and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd. , New Delhi and price formula had been given by them which had been followed by the plaintiff. ( 5 ) IT is then stated in the plaint that the defendants were liable to pay the entire sale price agreed to by them as per bills and invoices for Rs. 4,53,609. 52 and Rs. 4,76,509. 28 as stated hereinabove. The defendants however made payment of Rs. 7. 00 lacs on 2nd April,1984 but did not pay the balance amount of Rs. 1,50,118. 50. Thereafter the defendants gave a cheque of Rs. 48,703. 13 alongwith their letter dated llth May,1984 wherein it was stated that they were making full and final payment. This fact was, however, denied by the plaintiff vide their letter dated 13th June,1984 wherein it was brought to the notice of the - defendants that a sum of Rs. 1,01,415. 67 was still due and outstanding and payable by therdefendants to the plaintiff as per the terms and conditions agreed to between the parties. It is then stated that the plaintiff is entitled to recover interest at theirate of 13. 5% per annum on the said amount of Rs. 1,01,415. 67 and a sum of Rs. 440. 00 being the notice charges. Since the defendants have failed to pay the amount mentioned hereinabove despite legal notices dated 22nd October,1984. and 29th November,1984, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff. ( 6 ) SUMMONS of the suit were issued to the defendants. The defendants were, however, served through substituted service by publication in the statesman thereafter the defendants appeared through their counsel and written statement was filed, on behalf of the defendants 1 and 2. Replication in reply to the written statement was filed on behalf of the plaintiff. ( 6 ) SUMMONS of the suit were issued to the defendants. The defendants were, however, served through substituted service by publication in the statesman thereafter the defendants appeared through their counsel and written statement was filed, on behalf of the defendants 1 and 2. Replication in reply to the written statement was filed on behalf of the plaintiff. The following issues were framed: 1. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties, as alleged. 2. Whether defendant No. 3 is not partner of defendant No. 1and as such has. been wrongly impleaded as a defendant in this suit? 3. Whether the suit has been properly valued? 4. Whether the suit has been filed and plaint has been signed and. verified by a duly authorised person? 5. Whether the plaintiff is a limited company duly incorporated under the Companies Act 1913 as alleged? 6. To what amount the plaintiff is entitled in this suit? 7. Whether the counter-claim sought to be raised by the defendants is vague, general and not specific and is liable to be rejected for failure of the defendants to pay necessary court fee thereupon? 8. . Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim any interest, if so, at what rate? 9. Relief. ( 7 ) VIDE order dated 8th March,1990 passed by the Deputy Registrar, the case was fixed for trial for four working days on 18th,19th,22nd and 23rd March,1993. However, on 28th October. 1991 the Deputy Registrar pointed out in his order that written statement on behalf of defendant No. 3 had not been filed nor any one was present on his behalf. Acccordingly he directed the case to be. laid before the Court for proceeding ex parte against the defendant No. 3. Thereafter vide order datd 24th January,1992 the defendant No. 3 was proceeded against ex parte. ( 8 ) ON 18th March,1993 the case came up for trial but on that date none appeared on behalf of defendants 1 and 2. The statement of Public Witness 1 , Shri G. S. Sobti was recorded on that date. On the same date the counsel for the plaintiff closed his evidence; Again on 19th March,1993,22nd March. 1993 and 23rd March,1993 none appeared on behalf of defendants 1 and 2. Accordingly on 23rd Mach,1993 the evidence of defendasnts 1 and 2 was closed and they were also proceeded against ex parte. On the same date the counsel for the plaintiff closed his evidence; Again on 19th March,1993,22nd March. 1993 and 23rd March,1993 none appeared on behalf of defendants 1 and 2. Accordingly on 23rd Mach,1993 the evidence of defendasnts 1 and 2 was closed and they were also proceeded against ex parte. Arguments in the case were heard on 21st September,1993 and 30th September,1993. ISSUE NO. 1( 9 ) IN the written statement filed on behalf of defendants 1 and 2 it was alleged that the suit was bad for non-joinder of the parties as other partners of the defendant No. 1 have not been impleaded as parties to the suit I, however, find that only a vague allegation has been made to this effect in prelilminary objection No. l and no evidence has been led by the said defendant to prove the said allegation. ( 10 ) ACCORDINGLY this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. ISSUE NO. 2 ( 11 ) IN the written statement filed on behalf of defendants 1 and 2, it has been alleged that the defendant No. 3 has wrongly been impleaded as a defendant as the said defendant is not a partner of the defendant No. 1. Again I find no merit in this allegation as no evidence has been led by the said defendants to prove this allegation. Accordingly this issue is also decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. ISSUE NO. 3 ( 12 ) AS regards issue No. 3, from a bare reading of para 15 of the plaint it is clear that valuation of the suit for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs. 1,20,111. 00 on which a court fee of Rs. 3564. 00 has been paid. In view of this I hold that the suit has been properly valued and ad valorem court fee has. been paid on the suit valuation. ISSUE NO. 4 ( 13 ) IN para 2 of the plaint it has been stated that Sh. B. K-Malhotra who has filed the suit and has signed and verified the plaint, is the Vice-President and General Attorney/principal Officer of the plaintiff company. This fact has been proved by Public Witness 1 who has appeared as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff. B. K-Malhotra who has filed the suit and has signed and verified the plaint, is the Vice-President and General Attorney/principal Officer of the plaintiff company. This fact has been proved by Public Witness 1 who has appeared as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff. This witness has also proved the power of attorney issued by the plaintiff company in favour of the said Sh. B. K. Malhotra and the said power of attorney is Ex. P- 7. Accordingly I hold that the suit has been filed and the plaint has been signed and verified by a duly authorised officer and this issue is also decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. ISSUE NO. 5 ( 14 ) IN para 1 of the plaint it has clearly been mentioned that the plaintiff is a limited company incorporated under the Companies Act,1913 and this fact has been proved by Public Witness 1 who has also proved the copy of the certificate of incorporation of the plaintif company which is Ex. P-l. Accordingly this issue is also decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. ISSUE NO. 6 ( 15 ) VIDE letter dated 29th October,1981 which is Ex. P-2 the defendant had placed the order with the plaintiff for the purchase of the machine. The plaintiff had confirmed the acceptance of the order for sale of one number spline hobbing and thread milling machine Model ZFWVG250 x 2000 vide letter dated 11th May,1983 which is Ex. P-3. The Projects and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd. had authorised the plaintiff company to supply the aforesaid machine alongwith the accessories to the defendants. The plaintiff raised two bills for the balance price i. e. Bill/invoice No. 99/sp-699/005 datd 1st September,1983 for Rs. 4,53,609. 52 and Bill No. 99/700/sp/005 also dated 1st September,1983 for Rs. 4,76,509. 28 which are Exhibits P-11 and P-12. Ex. P-4 is the letter dated 21st September, 1983 written by the defendant to the plaintiff wherein the delay in the payment in respect of invoices 699 and 700 was recorded and it was stated that the same would be cleared within 10 days. Ex. P-5 is the letter dated 11th October,1983 written by the defendant to the plaintiff wherein it was stated that the defendants were not in a position to release. Ex. P-5 is the letter dated 11th October,1983 written by the defendant to the plaintiff wherein it was stated that the defendants were not in a position to release. the-payment of the plaintiff as certain formalities were yet to be completed with the Delhi Financial Corporation. It was, however, stated in this letter that the defendants shall pay interest at, 13. 5% per annum on the outstanding payment from the date of the invoices. Ex. P-6 is the letter dated 17th May,1984 written by the defendant to the plaintiff with which a cheque dated 17th May,1984 for Rs. 48. 703. 13 was annexed. Exhibits P-8 and P-9 are the legal notices dated 22nd October,1984 and 29th November,1984 sent by the plaintiff to the defendants calling upon them to make payment of Rs. 1,01,425. 67 and interest at the rate of 13. 5% per annum. All these exhibits have been proved by Public Witness-1. ( 16 ) FROM these documents it clear that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendants. On the other hand the defendants have not examined any witness to rebut the averments made in the plaint Accordingly this issue is held in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. ISSUE NO. 7 ( 17 ) AS regards counter-claim sought to be raised by me defendants, the defendants have not examined any witness, to prove the averments made under the counter-claim. Accordingly this issue is decided against the defendants and it is held that the defendants are not entitled to recover any amount mentioned in the counter-claim. ISSUE NO. 8 ( 18 ) IN the letter dated llth October,1983 which is Ex. P-5, the defendants had agreed to pay interest at the rate of 13. 5% per annum on the outstanding amount. In view of this, I hold that the plaintiff is entitled to claim interest at the rate of 13. 5% from the date of the suit till the date of the decree. ISSUE NO. 9 ( 19 ) IN view of the above discussion the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs. It is further held that the plaintiff will be entitled to pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 13. 5% per annum. Decree may be drawn accordingly.