SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. ( 1 ) THE plaintiff, a partnership firm, placed an order on defendant no. 1 for supply of 800 metric tons of wheat flour for export to Dubai for which orders had been received at specific rates. The goods had to be supplied by defendant no. 1 not later than 31. 12. 1996 and the quota in respect of the same was allocated to the plaintiff by Agricultural and Processed Food Products and export Development Authority (APEDA) vide allotment letter dated 25. 10. 1996. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant no. 2, managing director of defendant no. 1, had approached the plaintiff for making supply of goods on the assurance that defendant no. 1 was in a position to do so. A request was made that at least 50 per cent of the value of the goods be paid to defendant no. 1 in advance and accordingly plaintiff paid a sum of Rs 29 lakh to defendant no. 1 by four bank drafts. It is stated that the orders were reduced into writing on 19. 11. 1996. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff had to also give a bank guarantee in the sum of Rs 8. 6 lakhs to the APEDA for allotment of the quota and supply of 35,000 empty plastic bags to defendant no. 1 which were prepared and printed in the name of the plaintiff from chandigarh for the purposes of packing wheat flour for export. ( 3 ) THE grievance of the plaintiff is that nothing was supplied by the defendants causing loss to the plaintiff. The money of the plaintiff given to defendant no. 1 as advance was lying with the defendants and plaintiff had also incurred expenses for the bags in which the flour had to be supplied. In fact subsequently a ban came into being with the result that the plaintiff could not supply the goods. The defendant no. 1 refunded only an amount of Rs. 9. 00 lakhs. ( 4 ) THE plaintiff claims that the foreign buyer claimed refund of USD 1,13,400 paid to the plaintiff as advance and in view of foreign exchange restrictions the plaintiff had to adjust the amount against future supplies. The plaintiff claims loss to the tune of Rs 13,76,000 being difference of sale price and purchase price by applying the conversion rate at 35. 55 per USD. The plaintiff claims loss to the tune of Rs 13,76,000 being difference of sale price and purchase price by applying the conversion rate at 35. 55 per USD. The plaintiff has filed the suit for the following amounts: i ) Principal amount advanced to defendants 29,00,000. 00 ii) Cost of 35,000 empty bags ??? ?????? ? 2,62,500. 00 iii) Interest @ 18 per cent per annum for the period from November, 1996 to till date after giving the credit of the amount received ?????????????????????????? 13,43,000. 00 iv) Loss of profit 13,76,000. 00 58,81,500. 00 Less amount received ? 9,00,000. 00 Balance amount payable 49,81,500. 00 ( 5 ) THE defendants were served with the summons and entered appearance. The defendants were proceeded ex parte on 03. 05. 2007. ( 6 ) THE plaintiff has filed affidavit by way of evidence of Sh. K. C. Goel partner of plaintiff firm as PW1 who has proved the registration certificate issued by the registrar of Firms as Expw1/1 and Expw1/2. The said witness has affirmed to what is stated in the plaint and proved the contract as Expw1/3. The demands made on the defendants have been proved as Expw1/4 and PW1/6 while the reply of the defendants have been proved as Expw1/5. ( 7 ) IN view of the aforesaid evidence led, it is clear that the advance of the plaintiff resulted in no supplies from the defendants and thus the sum of Rs 29 lakh on account of advance to defendant no. 1 is liable to be recovered by the plaintiff. The costs of the bags is Rs 2,62,500 which was also never returned and is, thus, liable to be recovered. The plaintiff has also claimed loss of profit but there is no material on record to substantiate such a claim. The defendant has paid plaintiff a sum of Rs 9 lakh which is liable to be adjusted against the amount so claimed. Plaintiff further claims interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum for the post period, pendente lite and future. ( 8 ) I am thus of the considered view that a sum of Rs 22,62,000. 00 (Rs. 29,00,000 + rs. 2,26,500 ? Rs. 9,00,000) is liable to be paid by the defendant no. 1 to the plaintiff. There is nothing on record to show any personal liability of defendant no. ( 8 ) I am thus of the considered view that a sum of Rs 22,62,000. 00 (Rs. 29,00,000 + rs. 2,26,500 ? Rs. 9,00,000) is liable to be paid by the defendant no. 1 to the plaintiff. There is nothing on record to show any personal liability of defendant no. 2, the managing director as the transaction is with defendant no. 1. Insofar as the interest is claimed, I deem it appropriate to direct that the defendant no. 1 would be liable to pay interest at 15 per cent per annum simple interest. Since the contract had to be performed by 31/12/1996, I deem it appropriate to grant interest from 1/1/1997. ( 9 ) A decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant no. 1 for the sum of Rs 22,62,000. 00 along with interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum from 1/1/1997 till date of payment. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to proportionate costs. ( 10 ) THE certificate of fee has been taken on record as filed in Court to be included as part of the costs. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.