JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand Sood, J.—Plaintiff, Domebell Investments Pvt., Ltd., is a Company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, with its registered office at Ahmed Nagar. The Company has a Branch at Plot No. 25, Sector-1, Industrial Area, Parwanoo, District Solan, (H.P.). The Company manufactures and sell various electronic products including colour Televisions, Black Televisions, washing machines, Refrigerators, VCRs, VCPs and audio systems. 2. Defendant No. 1 M/s Vickey Electronics, is a propriety firm at Kullu. Defendant No. 2 Shivek Sharma is Proprietor of the firm. 3. The Plaintiff Company has filed this suit, against the defendants for recovery of rupees 10,06,621/-, through its Assistant Manager (Accounts), who has been authorised to institute the present suit. 4. The case of the Plaintiff Company as set out in the plaint is: 5. The defendants approached the Plaintiff Company in the year 1989-90 for the purchase of electronic equipment and for this purpose, an open and running account was maintained in the Branch of the Plaintiffs Company. Plaintiffs Company maintained accounts of the various goods, purchased by the defendants, on credit. The defendants purchased electronic items from time to time on agreed terms. The amount of purchase used to be debited in the account of the defendants and payments received were credited. The defendants firm defaulted in payments. The last payment was received by a demand draft on 11.3.1994 for Rs. 1,00,000/-, which was credited to the account of the defendants on 30.3.1994. Thereafter, the defendants stopped making payments. The balance due from defendants, on account of the unpaid price for the supply of goods is Rs. 6,53,650/-. 6. It is the case of the plaintiffs Company that the defendants started making purchases from the year 1991 and last transaction was made in November, 1994. The detail of the goods supplied as given in the plaint, is: Sr. No. Bill No. Date Product Qty. Amount 1. 035. 2.3.91. B&W TV. 4. 9700.00 2. 045. 12.4.91. B&W TV 16. 13800.00 3. 153. 6.6.91. B&W TV. 6. 13800.00 4. 188. 30.9.91. CTV. 2. 34980.00 5. 189. 30.9.91. B&W TV. 5. 10875.00 6. 214. 17.12.91. CTV. 4. 59360.00 7. 225. 31.1.92. CTV. 2. 27380.00 8. 244. 29.2.92. B&W TV. 10 24800.00 9. 259 31.3.92 CTV. 1 17490.00 10. 005 30.4.92 CTV. 7 94530.00 11. 014 30.5.92 CTV. 2 27730.00 12. 015 3.6.92 CTV. 3 54970.00 13. 025 8.7.92 CTV. 9 124110.00 14. 038 31.7.92 CTV. 189. 30.9.91. B&W TV. 5. 10875.00 6. 214. 17.12.91. CTV. 4. 59360.00 7. 225. 31.1.92. CTV. 2. 27380.00 8. 244. 29.2.92. B&W TV. 10 24800.00 9. 259 31.3.92 CTV. 1 17490.00 10. 005 30.4.92 CTV. 7 94530.00 11. 014 30.5.92 CTV. 2 27730.00 12. 015 3.6.92 CTV. 3 54970.00 13. 025 8.7.92 CTV. 9 124110.00 14. 038 31.7.92 CTV. 7 111130.00 15. 078 31.10.92 B&W TV. 50 118875.00 16. 079 31.10.92 B&W TV. 5 25300.00 17. 092 31.10.92 CTV. 6 86240.00 18. 105 5.12.92 HCLEANR. 25 1350.00 19. 106 5.12.92 CTV. 1 15590.00 20. 043 31.5.93 CTV. 1 15140.00 21. 158 21.1.94 CTV. 4 50860.00 22. 215 22.11.94 B&W TV. 7 16800.00 TOTAL 954860.00 7. According to the plaintiffs Company, one of the invoices. No. 035 amounting to Rs. 9,700/- dated 2.3.1991 is not available as the same was taken into custody by the Central Excise Department on 12.3.1992 by a Panchnama. 8. The Plaintiffs Company claim interest from the defendants at the rate of 18% per annum from 12.3.1994 to 11.3.1997, amounting to Rs. 3,52, 971/-. Thus in all Rs. 10,06,621/- are claimed. 9. Defendants, maintain plaintiff Company, failed to pay the due amount in spite of repeated demands. The Company is also entitled to interest pendent lite and future at the rate of 18% per annum in accordance with the stipulation in the bills that if the amount of the bills remained unpaid for eight days, the interest chargeable would be 18% per annum. The Plaintiff Company served a legal notice on the defendants for payment of the amount due but without any reasons. After giving credit to the payments received, the Plaintiffs Company is entitled to Rs. 6,53,650/- as principal amount, Rs. 3,53,971/- as interest till 11.3.1997. The plaintiffs company claims cost, interest pendent lite and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 11.3.1997 till the realization of the entire amount. 10. The defendants resist the suit. The allegations are controverted. 11. Stand of the defendants is that the plaintiffs Company has filed this suit on the facts, which are incorrect to the knowledge of the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit due to their own acts, deed, conduct and acquiescence. The plaintiffs, it is alleged, are guilty of suppressing the true and material facts from the court and, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. The plaintiffs, it is alleged, are guilty of suppressing the true and material facts from the court and, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. The suit is also opposed on the ground that it lacks full and material particulars and the allegations made are vague. On merits, defendants pleaded that the suit has not been filed by an authorised person. It is, however, admitted that defendant No. 1 M/s Vickey Electronics is carrying business of purchase of electronic items. According to the defendant, the suit has been filed in respect of the transactions of the period during which defendant No. 2 was not proprietor of the firm and, therefore, there is no privity of contract between the parties and on this ground, the suit is liable to be dismissed. It is, however, admitted that defendant No. 1 through its Proprietor had dealing with the Plaintiffs Company, but according to the defendants, each of the transaction was independent and separate and therefore, the suit of the plaintiff company for outstanding amount is barred by the period of limitation. The plaintiff Company, it is emphasized, has no right to club all the transactions and claim benefit of limitation. It is denied that the Plaintiff Company maintained any account regarding the transactions made with the defendants. The accounts as alleged by the plaintiff Company is only fabrication maintain defendants. The defendants cannot be fastened with any liability on the basis of such accounts. It is denied that any amount is due from the defendants to the Plaintiff Company. On the other hand, maintain defendants, plaintiff Company owe money to the defendants because of transactions in dispute for which the defendants have filed a counter claim. It is the case of the defendants that they made over payments to the plaintiff Company According to the defendants, they opened a mutual open current account regarding the transactions and after making adjustment of the goods received from the plaintiff Company an amount of Rs. 2,07,325/- is due from the Plaintiff Company. The claim of the plaintiff Company, it is alleged, is false and frivolous. 12. In the counter claim, defendants allege that there was an open, current and mutual account maintained by the defendants in the ordinary course of their business and the defendants have been making payments to the plaintiff Company from time to time against the goods received. The claim of the plaintiff Company, it is alleged, is false and frivolous. 12. In the counter claim, defendants allege that there was an open, current and mutual account maintained by the defendants in the ordinary course of their business and the defendants have been making payments to the plaintiff Company from time to time against the goods received. The defendants made various payments at their convenience which were to be adjusted towards the value of the goods received by them or to be received thereafter and some times the amount paid by the defendants to the plaintiff Company was in excess of the goods received by them and the said amount was reflected in the account books of the defendants. They received goods worth Rs. 7,42,675/- from the period from 1992 till 1994. Against this amount, the defendants had made payment of Rs. 9,50,000/- to the plaintiff Company through demand drafts and cheques. Thus, the defendants paid excess amount to the Plaintiffs company. Last item of the goods was received from the Plaintiff Company on 28.11.1994 for an amount of rupees 16,800/- and a sum of Rs. 2,02,325/- were due to the defendants from the Plaintiff Company. The plaintiff Company stopped supply of electronics goods to the defendants without any reason. The defendants claim a decree of Rs. 2,02,325/- against the plaintiff Company alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum amounting to Rs. 1,11,955.50 and in all for Rs. 3,19,280.50 paise, which includes principal, and interest. 13. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendants, as claimed? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to future interest from the defendants? If so, at what rate? OPD. 3. Whether the suit has been instituted through a competent person? OPP. 4. Whether the suit is within time? OPP. 5. Whether the plaintiffs have maintained the true and correct accounts? OPP. 6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit due to its own acts, deeds, conduct and acquiescence? OPD. 7. Whether the suit in the present form is not maintainable? OPD. 8. Whether the plaintiff has suppressed material facts as alleged? OPD. 9. Whether the plaint lacks full and material particulars? OPD. 10. Whether there is no privity of contract inter se the parties? If so, its effect? OPD. 11. OPD. 7. Whether the suit in the present form is not maintainable? OPD. 8. Whether the plaintiff has suppressed material facts as alleged? OPD. 9. Whether the plaint lacks full and material particulars? OPD. 10. Whether there is no privity of contract inter se the parties? If so, its effect? OPD. 11. Whether the defendants are entitled to the amount of counter claim? OPD. , 12. Whether the defendants are entitled to interest on the amount of counter claim? If so, at what rate? OPD. 13. Relief. 14. Hear learned counsel for the parties. I was taken through the evidence on record. My findings on the various issues are: Issue No.3. 15. The case of the defendants is that Ravinder Bhan through whom the present suit was laid by the Plaintiff Company was not duly authorised on behalf of the Company to institute the present suit and verify the pleadings. 16. Ravinder Bhan appearing as PW1 states that he was employed by the Plaintiff Company in the year 1990 and holds the post of Assistant Manager (Accounts). It is his evidence that Plaintiff Company executed a power of attorney in his favour and is, therefore, entitled to maintain the suit. In his cross-examination, he states that a resolution was passed by the plaintiff Company authorizing him to file this suit. He volunteered to produce a copy of the resolution if so required. This evidence of the plaintiff remain rebutted and undisputed by Shivek Sharma, proprietor of the defendant while appearing as DW 1. 17. The issue in this view of the matter is decided in favour of the Plaintiff and it is held that the suit has been instituted by the Plaintiff Company through a competent person. Issue No 4. 18. The case of the Plaintiff Company is that in the year 1989-90, Defendants firm approached the Plaintiff company for purchase of electronic equipments and for this purpose, an open and running account was maintained in the Branch of the Plaintiff Company. Issue No 4. 18. The case of the Plaintiff Company is that in the year 1989-90, Defendants firm approached the Plaintiff company for purchase of electronic equipments and for this purpose, an open and running account was maintained in the Branch of the Plaintiff Company. The last payment was made by the defendants firm by draft on 11.3.1994 which was credited to the account of the Defendants firm and thereafter the defendants slopped making payment of the balance due and therefore cause of action arose to the Plaintiffs lastly on 11.3.1994 when the last payment was made by the defendants as also on 21.5.1996 when the legal notice was sent by the Plaintiff Company to the defendants. The defendants firm disputes the assertion of the Plaintiffs. It is denied that there was any open, mutual current account between the parties regarding the sale transactions. Each transaction was separate and independent and therefore, all transactions cannot be clubbed to saddle the defendants with the liability. The defendants having said this in answer to para 4 of the plaint, categorically admit in para 2 of the counter claim that the parties maintained open, current and mutual account. The defendants state: "The defendants had been maintaining open, current and mutual account faithfully in the ordinary course of their business." Ravinder Bhan (PW1) in his evidence categorically states that payments were not made on bill-to-bill basis. It is his evidence that defendant firm had opened their accounts in the books of the Plaintiffs for the supply of goods and payments thereof. In cross-examination, he is categorical that the accounts of the company were maintained by him and his junior. 19. Shivek Sharma, proprietor of the defendant firm appearing as DW1 does not dispute that the transactions between the parties were inter-related. Shri J.N. Sharma (DW2) who maintained the accounts on behalf of the defendant firm categorically states, "The accounts maintained with the Plaintiff Company was open and running". 20. In view of this admitted position, the limitation shall be governed under Article 1 of the Limitation Act. Now the last transaction admittedly took place on 22.11.1994 when seven black and white TVs were supplied by the Plaintiff Company to the defendants and the last payment was made by the defendant firm by a draft on 11.3.1994 as admitted by the defendant No. 1 in his cross-examination. Now the last transaction admittedly took place on 22.11.1994 when seven black and white TVs were supplied by the Plaintiff Company to the defendants and the last payment was made by the defendant firm by a draft on 11.3.1994 as admitted by the defendant No. 1 in his cross-examination. Limitation thus will start running from the close of the year in which the last item admitted or proved is entered in the account. The suit was filed on 10th March, 1997, which is clearly within the period of limitation under Article 1 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act. The issue is accordingly decided. Issue No. 6. 21. There is nothing in the evidence or in the pleadings as to how the Plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by its acts, deeds, conduct and acquiescence. During the course of arguments, learned Senior Counsel for the defendants submitted that the plaintiff did not approach the Court with clean hands as some transactions with Video on by the defendants were neither pleaded nor produced. 22. It is the evidence of Ravinder Bhan, Assistant Manager of the Plaintiff Company (PW1) that Videocon International who had a Branch at Parwanoo, H.P. has nothing to do with the Plaintiff Company M/s Domewell Investments Private Limited and the relationship between the Plaintiff Company and Videocon International was purely a business relationship. It was in cross-examination that he stated: "I categorically state that Videocon International has nothing to do with the Dombell Investments Pvt. Ltd. The relationship between the plaintiff Company and Videocon International is purely business relationship. I am not aware if the Directors of the Board of M/s. Domebell Investments (P) Ltd. Are also the Directors of the Board of Videocon International". 23. Even, Shivek Sharma, Proprietor of the defendant firm appearing as DW 1 admitted in his cross-examination that the Statement of account in respect of the transactions maintained and sent by them to the defendant also contain certain transactions in respect of certain transactions with Videocon International and the plaintiffs had nothing to do regarding the goods which were supplied by Videocon Ltd. In his own words: "..It is correct that the plaintiffs company has nothing to do regarding the goods which were supplied by Videocon Ltd". 24. 24. In view of this evidence on record, by no stretch, it can be said that the plaintiff did not approach the Court with clean hands. Plaintiff Company has nothing to do with the transactions of the defendant firm with Videocon Pvt. Ltd. The issue is accordingly decided and held against the defendants. Issue No. 7. 25. During the course of hearing, this issue was not pressed by the learned Senior Counsel for the defendants and is accordingly decided against the defendants. Issue No. 8. 26. During the course of arguments, learned Senior Counsel made an halfhearted attempt to show that the plaintiff falsely alleged that there was a regular open, current and mutual account between the parties. So far this question is concerned, it has already been decided against the defendants. In any event, there is nothing on the record to suggest that plaintiff suppressed any material fact. The issue is held against the defendants. Issues No. 9 and 10. 27. Both these issues were not pressed during the course of arguments nor there is any evidence on these issues. The defendants categorically admit the transactions between the Plaintiff Company and defendants. Issues are accordingly decided against the defendants. Issues No. 1, 5 & 11. 28. All these issues are taken up together being inter-linked and inter dependent. The Plaintiffs Company has based this suit on the basis of supply of certain goods as detailed in the amended plaint for which open, current and mutual account was kept by the parties and the payments received. Mr. Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Counsel, urged with considerable vehemence that the ledger sheets produced by the Plaintiff Company, photocopies which are Exts. PW1/C1 to PW1/C14 cannot be said to be entries in the Books of Accounts regularly kept in the course of business as contemplated under Section 34 of the Evidence Act. He argued that the loose sheets kept in a book .cannot be said to be a book of account. Be it noticed that the original sheets pertaining to the account between parties, which was produced in the Court. They were found to be regularly kept in the course of business and said book was meant and intended to be permanent. He argued that the loose sheets kept in a book .cannot be said to be a book of account. Be it noticed that the original sheets pertaining to the account between parties, which was produced in the Court. They were found to be regularly kept in the course of business and said book was meant and intended to be permanent. To my mind, said sheets cannot but be a book of account for the purpose of Section 34 of the Evidence Act, more so, when PW1 Ravinder Bhan, Assistant Manager (Accounts) of the Plaintiff company appearing as PW1 categorically states that the payments were not made on bill to bill basis and whatever payments were received by the Plaintiff or defendants by any cheque or draft were reflected in the account maintained by the Plaintiff. The photo copies of such account Ext. PW1/B were true and correct to the original which were brought in the Court and similarly, entries made in the account books in terms of Ext. PW1/C1 to PW1/C14 were true and correct copies of the original which were brought in the Court. It is his evidence that these accounts were maintained under his supervision. However, without further going into this aspect of the case, it be noticed that the defendants themselves sent a copy of the accounts of the Plaintiff which also contained the accounts of Videocon International copy of which is Exhibit DW1/B. Document Exhibit DW1/B, the own document of the defendants, reflects all the items supplied to the defendant firm by the Plaintiff Company as claimed by the Plaintiff Company in the amended plaint. Item No. 1 in respect of Bill 035 is detailed at Sr. No. 2 of the statement of account. Similarly, items No. 2 and 3 are reflected at Sr. Nos, 4 and 5 of the statement of account. The other items at Sr. Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 are reflected at Sr. Nos. 11, 12, 18, 20, 25, 30, 36, 37, 38, 48, 49, 56, 57, 58, 66, 67, 73, 74 and 75 respectively of the statement of account (Ext. DW1/B). The other items at Sr. Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 are reflected at Sr. Nos. 11, 12, 18, 20, 25, 30, 36, 37, 38, 48, 49, 56, 57, 58, 66, 67, 73, 74 and 75 respectively of the statement of account (Ext. DW1/B). The other transactions reflected in the statement of account of Exhibit DW1/B pertains to Videocon International Pvt. Ltd. Shivek Sharma (DW1) proprietor of the defendant firm, categorically admit in his cross-examination that the statement of account (Exhibit DW1/B) was sent by the firm which is correct and is signed by him. In his own words: "It is correct that the statement of account Exhibit DW1/A was sent by us is correct and signed by me". 29. He further stated that statement of accounts Exhibit DW1 /B contains some payment made to Videocon International. Thus, the document Exhibit DW1/B is admittedly true and correct account of the goods supplied by the Plaintiff Company to the defendant firm. The total amount of the goods supplied by the Plaintiff Company to the defendant firm even as per the statement of account Exhibit DW1/B comes to rupees 9,54,860/- as claimed by the Plaintiff. Thus of the own admission of the defendants, the goods valuing rupees 9,54,860/- were received by the defendants from the Plaintiff Company. 30. So far the payment by the defendants to the Plaintiff company is concerned, the case of the defendants is that they have made the payments of rupees 9,50,000/- to the Plaintiffs on various occasions through demand drafts/cheques against supply of the goods by the Plaintiff of the value of rupees 7,42,675/-, According to the Plaintiff Company, an amount of rupees 8,50,000/- were only received from the defendants. 31. The dispute is only confined the payment of rupees one lakh which allegedly was made by the defendants by a cheque No. 0550316 on August 19, 1992. The defendants also rely upon the ledger books produced in the Court. I have perused the ledger books. There are over-writings in the entries of the ledger book. Shri J.N. Sharma (DW2) who maintained the accounts admits in his cross-examination: It is correct that in this ledger book there is over writing on the balance amount brought forward. It is correct that entry in the ledger, for the year 1991-92 is in Pencil. There are over-writings in the entries of the ledger book. Shri J.N. Sharma (DW2) who maintained the accounts admits in his cross-examination: It is correct that in this ledger book there is over writing on the balance amount brought forward. It is correct that entry in the ledger, for the year 1991-92 is in Pencil. It is correct that the last balance brought forward in the ledger for the year 1993-94 is not in accordance with the last balance entry in the ledger for the year 1992-93. It is correct that there is over writing on the entries in respect of the account of the plaintiffs Company in the ledger for the year 1993-94. It is correct that there is a over writing in the last entry of the ledger for the year 1993-94 and there is also over writing on the last entry of the ledger for the year 1993-94". 32. In this view of the matter, this ledger account maintained by the defendants cannot be relied upon and has no value. Devinder Kumar, an Assistant working in the State Bank of India, Kullu Branch appearing as DW3 stated that cheque No. 0550316 dated 28.6.1992 though was issued in favour of Domebell Investments Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh but this name was scored off and it stood issued in the name of M/s Videocon International Ltd. This cheque was cleared by their bank in clearance. He was unable to state whether the amount of this cheque was credited to the accounts of the Plaintiff Company or not as this, according to the witness, could only be ascertained by the Bank who sent the cheque for collection. The cheque was sent by the State Black of India Ram Darbar, Industrial Area Branch, Chandigarh to their Branch for collection. In cross-examination, he admitted that to ascertain in whose favour the cheque is issued, the cheque is to be looked into and not the counterfoil. He was unable to state that who scribed the name of M/s Videocon International Ltd., after scoring the earlier name of Domebell Investments. However, Bodh Raj (PW2) Senior Assistant, State Bank of India, Ram Darbar Phase-II, Chandigarh brought the pay-in-slip in respect of this cheque. According to him, by this pay-in-slip, cheque No. 0550316 for rupees one lac was deposited with the Bank by Videocon International, which were collected and credited to their account No. 30865. However, Bodh Raj (PW2) Senior Assistant, State Bank of India, Ram Darbar Phase-II, Chandigarh brought the pay-in-slip in respect of this cheque. According to him, by this pay-in-slip, cheque No. 0550316 for rupees one lac was deposited with the Bank by Videocon International, which were collected and credited to their account No. 30865. It is his evidence that this cheque alongwith another cheque No. 0550319 for rupees 2 lacs was deposited by Videocon International in their account No. 30865. Both these cheques were sent for collection to State Bank of India, Kullu by short collection photocopy of which is Exhibit PW2/ B, original of this was produced in the Court. The amount of these two cheques was credited to the account of Videocon International Ltd., as is reflected in the ledger sheet copy of which is Exhibit PW2/D. This amount, he clarified, "was credited in the account of Videocon International on 27.8.92". In cross-examination, he maintains that the amount of cheque was credited to the account of Videocon International and it was drawn in favour of Videocon International. It thus is proved that amount of rupees one lakh by this cheque was not paid to the Plaintiff Company by the defendant firm. The amount, in fact of this cheque was paid by the defendant firm to the Videcon International with whom defendant firm admittedly had an account. 33. Thus, the stand of the defendant that in all rupees 9,50,000/- were paid to the plaintiff through demand drafts and cheque is not proved to be correct. The evidence conclusively proves that the plaintiffs were paid only rupees 8,50,000/- by various demand drafts. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that an amount of rupees 1,04,860/- is only due from the defendants to the Plaintiff and not rupees 6,53,650/- as claimed by the Plaintiff company. 34. The plaintiff would also be entitled to interest on this amount of rupees 1,04,860/- from the date of last payment to the date of filing of the suit, interest pendent lite and future interest. 35. There is nothing on the record in the evidence that the counter claim of the defendants for rupees 2,07,325/- is sustainable. As already said, against the admitted supply of the goods valuing rupees 9,54,860/-, an cmount of rupees 8,50,000/- was only paid. 35. There is nothing on the record in the evidence that the counter claim of the defendants for rupees 2,07,325/- is sustainable. As already said, against the admitted supply of the goods valuing rupees 9,54,860/-, an cmount of rupees 8,50,000/- was only paid. There is not a whisper about this either in the evidence of Shivek Sharma (DW1) or J.N. Sharma (DW2) who maintained the account of the defendants firm. On this aspect Shri J.N. Sharma (DW2) merely states that the Plaintiff Company owes rupees 1,46,025/- on account of over payment. He does not say how such amount is due from the Plaintiff Company to the defendant firm. Similarly, Shri Shivek Sharma Proprietor of the defendant firm (DW1) merely says "the Plaintiff Company owes them about Rs. 1,50,000/-". He does not spell out how this amount is due from the Plaintiff Company. In view of the evidence discussed above, it is held against: Issue No. 1: 36. That the plaintiff company is entitled to recover an amount of rupees 1,04,860/- from the Defendants. Issue No. 5: 37. The plaintiff had maintained true and correct account so far supply of goods is concerned. Issue No. 11: 38. The defendants are not entitled to any amount against their counter claim. Issue Nos. 2 and 12. 39. Interest so far on the unpaid price of the goods supplied prior; to the filing of suit is concerned, the Plaintiff has statutory right under Section 61 of the Sales of Goods Tax to recover such interest. Plaintiff Company claims interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the basis of the invoices, which stipulate that interest at 18%, would be charged on bill not paid within 8 days. Defendants on the other hand maintain that according to the practice in the business, interest at the rate of 15% is charged if the payment is not made by due time. Shivek Sharma, proprietor of the firm appearing as DW1 stated, "according to the practice in the business, interest at the rate of 15% is charged if the payment is not made by due time". 40. I thus, allow interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of last transaction, March 11,1994 till the date of filing of the suit, i.e. March 10, 1997. 40. I thus, allow interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of last transaction, March 11,1994 till the date of filing of the suit, i.e. March 10, 1997. The plaintiff would also be entitled to interest pendant lite and future interest at the same rate, as the transactions were commercial in nature. As the counter claim of the defendants has been rejected, therefore, the defendants are not entitled to any interest. Issues are accordingly decided. 41. In view of the findings above, a decree in the amount of rupees 1,04,860/- is passed in favour of the Plaintiff company and against the defendants jointly and severally alongwith interest at the rate of 15% per annum from March 11, 1994 to March 10, 1997, the date of filing of the suit, interest pendent lite at the same rate from March 11, 1997 till the date I of the decree and future interest at the same rate from the date of decree till the realization of the entire decretal amount. The counter claim of the defendants is dismissed. The defendants shall pay proportionate costs.