Judgment : A. C. ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN, J. This suit is for a sum of Rs. 27,43,373.50 with interest at the rate of 20% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of decree and 6% per annum from the date of decree till realisation and to pay the costs. 2.2(a) The plaintiff Electronics Corporation of Tamil Nadu Ltd., is a company wholly owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu, formed to carry on the business of promotion of Electronics Industries and Manufacture and marketing of electronic goods. The plaintiff states that the first defendant, Hi-Fi Electronics Industry Ltd., is carrying on the business of selling TV sets and components. The plaintiff appointed the first defendant, as one of the dealers, to sell and service Sears Elcot Televisions in Tamil Nadu. The first defendant approached the plaintiff company for appointment as an authorised seller to sell the Sears Elcot televisions. The plaintiff by their Proceedings in ref. No. MKT/MM/83/90, dated 17.12.1990, appointed the first defendant as one of the authorised dealers and the relevant terms and conditions thereof being as hereunder: 1) You will be paying a security deposit of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only), which does not carry any interest. This security deposit is repayable at the time of discontinuance of the dealership arrangement. 2) Your area of operation will be the State of Tamil Nadu. 3) You will be appointing suitable sales force to promote the sale of the products in the assigned territory. 4) Price will be communicated time-to- time. 5) The materials will be supplied normally against payment only. Any specific credit facility is to be approved by us based on written request from you. 6) You will ensure that you will be providing after sale service to the customer directly. 7) The TVs are guaranteed for one year from the date of sale to the customer against any manufacturing defect faulty workmanship. During this guarantee period, the service obligation to the customer is to be borne by you. 8) This arrangement is valid till 31.3.1991. Based on your performance, this will be extended for a further period of 3 years. 9) During the tenure of this arrangement, you will not sell any similar product of this nature without our written permission. During this guarantee period, the service obligation to the customer is to be borne by you. 8) This arrangement is valid till 31.3.1991. Based on your performance, this will be extended for a further period of 3 years. 9) During the tenure of this arrangement, you will not sell any similar product of this nature without our written permission. 10) In the event of any disputes arising out of this arrangement, the same will be settled through the Courts in Madras City only. 2(b) The plaintiff states that in pursuance of the dealership appointment, the defendant placed orders, on the plaintiff on various dates, for the purchase of 200 sets if AVET Black and white televisions, 200 sets of Sears Elcot colour televisions ‘Sigma‘ Model and 100 sets of 4 VOX Black and white televisions. A statement containing details of the purchases made by the first defendant is annexed to the plaint. The plaintiff had supplied the following goods, which were accepted and acknowledged by the first defendant between October 1990 and March 1991: Date Invoice No. Amount 31.10.1990 162 Rs. 7,31,500.00 30.11.1990 183 Rs. 13,58,500.00 31.12.1990 210 Rs. 7,64,417.50 20.2.1991 283 Rs. 14,19,632.50 31.3.1991 350 Rs. 12,21,500.00 As per the agreement, the defendant has to settle the dues in respect of the invoices, within 90 days from the date of delivery of the goods. Failure to do so would entail liability to pay interest at 20% per annum. Out of the sales referred to above, the amount due under Invoice No. 283, dated 20.2.1991, for 150 sets of Sears Elcot Colour Televisions (Sigma Model), against the total sum of Rs. 14,19,632.50 due and payable by the defendant, it has paid only a sum of Rs. 4,90,000/-between 30.7.1991 to 6.11.1991, leaving a balance of Rs. 9,29,632.50. In respect of Invoice No. 350, dated 31.3.1991, for 300 sets black and white televisions, no payment has been effected so far and the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 12,21,500/-. So under Invoice Nos.283 and 350, the first defendant is due and liable to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 21,51,132.50. The plaintiff had made several demands on the following dates: 28.2.1991, 15.5.1991, 3.7.1991, 17.7.1991, 4.10.1991, 11.11.1991, 6.12.1991 and 18.2.1992. The first defendant sent a reply (sic) on 27.5.1992, admitting and accepting the liability and requesting for some time to make the payment and settle the liability. 21,51,132.50. The plaintiff had made several demands on the following dates: 28.2.1991, 15.5.1991, 3.7.1991, 17.7.1991, 4.10.1991, 11.11.1991, 6.12.1991 and 18.2.1992. The first defendant sent a reply (sic) on 27.5.1992, admitting and accepting the liability and requesting for some time to make the payment and settle the liability. However, the defendant has not so far paid the amount and settle its inability to the plaintiff, 2(c) Under the agreement and terms and conditions, the plaintiff is entitled to claim interest at 20% per annum in respect of payments not effected within 30 days of the date of delivery and the amounts remaining outstanding. The first defendant is liable to pay interest at the following rates: The first defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 21,51,132.50 to the plaintiff. The first defendant is the company in which the defendants 2 to 4 are the directors. The defendants 2 to 5 are also personally liable and responsible to the plaintiff for the due discharge of the liability of the first defendant. The plaintiff issued lawyer notice to the defendants on 14.12.1992, which was duly received and acknowledged by the defendants. The defendants had sent an evasive reply dated 12.1.1993. The plaintiff issued a rejoinder notice on 12.3.1993. Hence, the suit. 3. The first defendant has filed the written statement contending as follows: The defendant company was dealer in TV sets, particularly Sears Elcot TV. Initially, they were procuring the abovesaid TV from the manufacturers viz., Sears Electronics Ltd and only on 17.12.1990 the plaintiff appointed this defendant company as their authorised dealer for the State of Tamil Nadu. The suit ought to have been filed against the company and not against Directors. They have unnecessarily included the Directors as parties. At the, outset the defendants 2 to 5 are not jointly and severally liable to the claim made by the plaintiff. As such none of the defendants have given any personal guarantee to the company or anybody particularly to the suit transaction. In any event, the defendants 2 to 5 are not personally liable to the suit transaction. The plaintiff made its claim on the terms and conditions stipulated in their letter dated 17.12.1990. In fact the plaintiff has not adhered to the terms and conditions on their part and made the defendant company to incur a heavy loss. In any event, the defendants 2 to 5 are not personally liable to the suit transaction. The plaintiff made its claim on the terms and conditions stipulated in their letter dated 17.12.1990. In fact the plaintiff has not adhered to the terms and conditions on their part and made the defendant company to incur a heavy loss. The defendant submits that the plaintiff has to supply the components and spares to carry the after sales service by the defendant as per clause 7 of the dealership letter dated 17.2.1990. The plaintiff has not supplied any components to the defendant and they have made their claim on the basis of supply of TV sets. All the invoices filed as documents show only the supply of TV sets. Even in the statement of account annexed to the plaint, the payments have been adjusted towards the supply of TV sets. When there are purchases of TV sets and necessarily the defendant should have purchased or ordered components with the plaintiff company. No such payment towards component was shown in the statement of account during the period of two years. The account of the plaintiff has to be rejected in toto. Even in the interest column, they have shown as 18% or 21%. As per the invoice, 20% interest has been shown. The plaintiff has not explained on what basis he has worked 18% and 21% interest when the invoice shows 20% interest. Hence, the plaintiff has not come with the true facts and figures. There is no agreement to pay interest. According to the plaintiff, the defendant has to carry out the service to the customers during the warranty period, how could the defendant carry out the service when the components were not supplied to the defendants. Since the plaintiff has not supplied the required component to the defendant, the defendant company could not carry out the after sale service during the warranty period and thereby caused return of materials. Even assuming without conceding that they have supplied the required materials, the accounts statement does not show anything about the purchase of components. If it is so, the accounts statement is a fabricated one and they have adjusted the payment made by the defendant periodically towards the sale of TV sets to suit the needs of the case filed herein. Even assuming without conceding that they have supplied the required materials, the accounts statement does not show anything about the purchase of components. If it is so, the accounts statement is a fabricated one and they have adjusted the payment made by the defendant periodically towards the sale of TV sets to suit the needs of the case filed herein. In fact, they ought to have adjusted towards the supply of components for early dues. In that case, supplies made by the plaintiff under Invoice Nos. 283 and 350 are time barred and the plaintiff cannot make their claim and hence the suit is time barred. Nowhere they have stated it is running account. The plaintiff company and the manufacturing company viz., Sears Electronics Limited are inter related and the plaintiff and Sears Electronics Limited have entered into an arrangement by which the plaintiff has to supply the TV sets from the plaintiff. This was done due to some financial arrangements between the plaintiff and Sears Electronics Limited. In fact this defendant was the direct dealers of TV sets from Sears Electronics Limited since 1983. Due to the entry of the plaintiff, the defendant has to supply TV sets to many Panchayat unions in Tamil Nadu and they have not paid the arrears due to non-performance of after sales service. This defendant could not carry out the after sales service since the plaintiff has failed in their obligation of supplying the necessary components to the defendant. In these circumstances, the defendant had lost their reputation in the market which they were keeping for the past eight years. Sears Electronics Limited was wound up in the year 1993 (26.11.1993) by Court order in C.P. No. 61 of 1992. The non-functioning of the manufacturing company was there since 1991 and this defendant was pressurised by the plaintiff to take back the old stocks which were not in good condition. The plaintiff company is also a Government Enterprises and they ought to have of apprised (sic) the situation and in that case the defendant would have withdrawn from the dealership and this so called huge arrears would not have come. The plaintiff has not supplied the necessary components as requested by the defendant and not of apprised (sic) the position of the manufacturing company which is a joint sector venture. The plaintiff has not supplied the necessary components as requested by the defendant and not of apprised (sic) the position of the manufacturing company which is a joint sector venture. The plaintiff has committed a breach of contract and practiced an unethical trade practice. The plaintiff has not carried out their obligations which are essential for sales promotion and for after sales service the defendant is not liable to pay the suit claim. It is further submitted that the plaintiff has not come forward to compensate the advertisement expenses incurred by the defendants. It is very clear that T.V. market is a competitive market and the advertisement is an essential thing to promote the sales. Now the plaintiff has forwarded a reply that there is no obligation on their part to pay the advertisement charges. The non supply of TV sets and the components was only due to the non-functioning of the manufacturing company and the liquidation process has been started much earlier and it has come to the light in the year 1992. The defendants 2 to 5 are not personally liable to the suit claim and the plaintiff ought not to have included them as parties. It is not a closely held company as stated by the plaintiff and the liabilities are limited so far as share holders are concerned. Moreover, the plaintiff has failed in their obligations to fulfill their contract and in short they have practiced an unethical trade practise. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 4. The second defendant in his written statement would contend that the second defendant is the managing director of the first defendant-company and he has not given any personal guarantee to the company and anybody. This defendant is not (sic) personally liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff. This defendant adopts the written statement filed by the first defendant. 5. The third defendant in her written statement would contend that she is a Director of the first defendant-company, but did not take any active part. This defendant has no personal acknowledge about the transaction. This defendant is not personally liable. In other respects, this defendant adopts the written statement filed by the first defendant. 6. The fourth defendant in his written statement would contend that he is no longer in the first defendants company as a director. This defendant has no personal acknowledge about the transaction. This defendant is not personally liable. In other respects, this defendant adopts the written statement filed by the first defendant. 6. The fourth defendant in his written statement would contend that he is no longer in the first defendants company as a director. He was a director from 25.4.1990 to 31.7.1991 and he was not a shareholder or the first defendant. This defendant had resigned from the Directorship in 1991 and this fact has been intimated to the Registrar of Companies. As such this defendant is no longer a Director. This defendant was not aware of the suit transaction. This defendant has also not given any personal guarantee to the plaintiff-company or anybody. In other respects, this defendant adopts the written statement filed by the first defendant. 7. The fifth defendant in his written statement would contend that he is no longer a Director of the first defendant and he is not a shareholder of the first defendant. He resigned from the Directorship in 1991 and the said fact has been intimated to the Registrar of Companies. As such, this defendant is no longer a Director of the first defendant. This defendant has not given any personel guarantee to the plaintiff company or anybody. In other respects, this defendant adopts the written statement filed by the first defendant. 8. On the above pleading, the following issues were framed for trial: 1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree and judgment as prayed for. 2) Whether the claim of the plaintiff is barred by limitation. 3) Whether the defendants had acted upon the terms and conditions of their appointment as the plaintiffs authorized dealer by proceedings dated 17.12.1990. 4) Whether the plaintiff has not adhered to the terms and conditions of their part and whether the defendants suffered loss on account of the same. 5) Whether the plaintiff committed breach of contract and practiced unethical trade practice. 6) Is the defendant incurred loss since the Plaintiff has not carried out the repairs during the warranty period. 7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to charge interest as the payment by the defendants was not made in stipulated time as agreed. 8) To what relief, the plaintiffs entitled. 9. Issue Nos. 6) Is the defendant incurred loss since the Plaintiff has not carried out the repairs during the warranty period. 7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to charge interest as the payment by the defendants was not made in stipulated time as agreed. 8) To what relief, the plaintiffs entitled. 9. Issue Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6:- According to the learned counsel appearing for the defendants, the plaintiff is in flagrant violation of Clause 7 to the terms and conditions of appointment of D1 as the plaintiffs authorised dealer by the proceedings dated 17.12.1990. Exhibit P-14 is the letter of authorisation issued by the plaintiff to the first defendant company authorising the first defendant company as dealer to sell Sears Elcot Colour Televisions. There are about 10 terms and conditions enumerated under Exhibit P-14. In the written statement, first defendant would contend that as per Clause 7 of Exhibit P-14 the plaintiff has not supplied any components to the defendant and on that score, the defendant had incurred loss and the said practise of the plaintiff is unethical trade practise. The fourth defendant was examined as D.W.I on the side of the defendants. He would depose that he had resigned from the D1-company. The suit notice was issued under original of Exhibit P-8. The reply notice sent by the defendant to the plaintiff is Exhibit P-9. Even though in the reply notice . Exhibit P-9, it was contended on behalf of D1-company that the plaintiff has failed to supply the components towards the guarantee period service of one year, there is absolutely no evidence let in on the side of the defendant except the evidence of D.W.1, who has not spoken to anything about non-supply of components for the TV supplied by the plaintiff, to show that the plaintiff has failed to supply the required components to the defendant on their demand. D1-company or the other defendants have not filed any suit claiming damages for the non-supply of any components for the TV supplied by the plaintiff. In the written statement filed by the defendants, none of the defendant had denied having received the goods under the Invoice No. 283, dated 20.2.1991, and Invoice No. 350, dated 31.3.1991. On behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 Superintendent of the plaintiff company was examined and the invoices referred to in the plaint were marked through him. In the written statement filed by the defendants, none of the defendant had denied having received the goods under the Invoice No. 283, dated 20.2.1991, and Invoice No. 350, dated 31.3.1991. On behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 Superintendent of the plaintiff company was examined and the invoices referred to in the plaint were marked through him. The relevant Invoices are Exhibit P-5 relating to Invoice No. 283 and Exhibit P-6 relating to Invoice No. 350. 9(a) The learned, counsel appearing for the defendant relying on Arulmighu Vedaranye-swami Devasthanairi by its Executive Officer, Vedaranyam v. Haridas and two others Arulmighu Vedaranye-swami Devasthanairi by its Executive Officer, Vedaranyam v. Haridas and two others Arulmighu Vedaranye-swami Devasthanairi by its Executive Officer, Vedaranyam v. Haridas and two others (1999) Suppl MLJ 297 : 2000 (1) CTC 534 , and contended that Exhibit P-5 and Exhibit P-6 are xerox copies and without producing the originals, the xerox copies cannot be received as secondary evidence. The relevant observation in the above said ratio runs as follows at Arulmighu Vedaranye-swami Devasthanairi by its Executive Officer, Vedaranyam v. Haridas and two others Arulmighu Vedaranye-swami Devasthanairi by its Executive Officer, Vedaranyam v. Haridas and two others Arulmighu Vedaranye-swami Devasthanairi by its Executive Officer, Vedaranyam v. Haridas and two others p. 298 of MLJ: “ 4. Thus it is not established that all the attesters to the Will are dead. It is not established that the original has been lost or that is in possession and custody of a person, who is not subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. Nor it is the case that inspite of diligence, the plaintiffs are not able to produce the original. In such circumstances, the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court erred in admitting the secondary evidence of the same. Under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, secondary evidence is permissible only when the conditions set out in the said Section are satisfied. It is not the plaintiffs case that the original is in possession or power of person against whom, the document is sought to be proved, or that it is in the possession of a person out of reach. Nor it is stated that it is in the possession of the person who is not subject to the process of the Court. Nor it is stated that it is in the possession of the person who is not subject to the process of the Court. It is also not stated that it is in the possession of a person who is not legally bound to produce it, and even after the notice mentioned under Section 66, such person failed to produce it. It is also not the case that the original has been destroyed or lost. Nor it is the evidence of the plaintiff that the non-production is on account of any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect. When the conditions laid down in Section 65 of the Evidence Act are not satisfied, in the face of the evidence of P.W.I, the Courts below erred in accepting the secondary evidence of the said document…….” The plaintiff claimed that the suit property was settled upon the temple by the plaintiffs grand father under Exhibit A-2-Will. But he had only produced the registration copy of the Will and has not produced the original Will. Further the Survey numbers of the suit property do not correlate with the property mentioned in the said Will. Only under such circumstances, it has been held that the secondary evidence cannot be let in and the conditions laid down in Section 65 of the Evidence Act are not satisfied. But in the case on hand, it is the case of the plaintiff that they have supplied TV sets to the first defendant under Exhibit P-5 and Exhibit P-6. Even under the suit notice-Exhibit P-8, the plaintiff has claimed the amount only on the basis of Exhibit P-5 - Invoice No. 283 and Exhibit P-6 - Invoice No. 350. Exhibit P-9 is reply notice sent by the defendants. Nowhere in Exhibit P-9 the defendants have denied the supply of TV sets under Exhibit P-5 and Exhibit P-6 invoices. Further, original of Exhibit P-5 and Exhibit P-6 invoices will be with the defendants. Without denying Exhibit P-5 and Exhibit P-6 invoices in their written statement, it is not open to the defendants to contend that Exhibit P-5 and. Exhibit P-6 are only xerox copies and cannot be admissible in evidence. Further, original of Exhibit P-5 and Exhibit P-6 invoices will be with the defendants. Without denying Exhibit P-5 and Exhibit P-6 invoices in their written statement, it is not open to the defendants to contend that Exhibit P-5 and. Exhibit P-6 are only xerox copies and cannot be admissible in evidence. The learned counsel also relied on K. Kallan (Died) and Others v. M. Kallan and Another K. Kallan (Died) and Others v. M. Kallan and Another K. Kallan (Died) and Others v. M. Kallan and Another 2006 (5) CTC 733 , wherein it has been held that xerox copy of registration copy of sale deed is inadmissible in evidence when there is no explanation offered regarding non-filling of original sale deed or even a registration copy of it and to let in secondary evidence. 9(b) Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff relying on Marwari Kumhar and Others v. Bhagwanpuri Guru Ganeshpuri and Another Marwari Kumhar and Others v. Bhagwanpuri Guru Ganeshpuri and Another Marwari Kumhar and Others v. Bhagwanpuri Guru Ganeshpuri and Another (2000) 3 MLJ 184 (SC), would contend that when the original of a document has been lost or destroyed then secondary evidence of the contents in the document is admissible under Section 65(c) of the Evidence Act. The relevant observation in the above dictum of the Honourable Apex Court runs as follows: “Thus it is to be seen that under sub-clause (c), Section 65, where the original has been lost or destroyed, then secondary evidence of the contents of the document is admissible. Sub-clause (c) is independent of sub-clause (f). Secondary evidence can be led, even of a public document, if the conditions as laid down under sub-clause (c) are fulfilled. Thus if the original of the public document has been lost or destroyed then the secondary evidence can be given even of a public document has been lost or destroyed then the secondary evidence can be given even of a public document has been lost or destroyed then the secondary evidence can be given even of a public document. This is the law as has been laid down by this Court in Mst. Bihi Aisha and Others v. The Bihar Subai Sunni Majlis Avadaf and Others Mst. Bihi Aisha and Others v. The Bihar Subai Sunni Majlis Avadaf and Others Mst. This is the law as has been laid down by this Court in Mst. Bihi Aisha and Others v. The Bihar Subai Sunni Majlis Avadaf and Others Mst. Bihi Aisha and Others v. The Bihar Subai Sunni Majlis Avadaf and Others Mst. Bihi Aisha and Others v. The Bihar Subai Sunni Majlis Avadaf and Others AIR 1969 SC 253 .” In the affidavit dated 5.10.2007 the plaintiff has stated while producing Exhibit P-2 to Exhibit P-11 documents with the original of Exhibit P-2 to Exhibit P-11, they were kept in their head office in 1999 and when the office was transferred to Perungudi unit in the year 1996 the entire records were found missing and lost ultimately. So under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the documents produced by the plaintiff cannot be admissible in evidence as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the defendants. The defendants have not proved that the defendants have incurred loss due to the breach of terms and conditions of the contract by the plaintiff. 9(c) The only contention of the learned counsel for the defendant is that under Exhibit P-5 -Invoice No. 283 the plaintiff has supplied only 130 piece of colour TV sets. But in the plaint, the plaintiff has claimed that under Invoice No. 283, 150 TV sets to the value of Rs. 14,19,632.50 were delivered, but a sum of Rs. 4,90,000/- alone was paid against the said invoice and the balance comes to Rs. 9,29,632.50 outstanding and under Invoice No. 350 a sum of Rs. 12,21,500/- is due. 9(d) According to the learned counsel for the defendants, in the plaint at para 11 the plaintiff has stated that the value of 150 Sears Elcot Colour Televisions under Invoice No. 283 values Rs. 14,19,632.50, but they have supplied only 130 TV sets as Invoice No. 283 and so, the amount stated in the Invoice No283 is not correct and the value of 20 TV sets is to be deducted from Invoice No. 282-Exhibit P-5. But the rate of one TV set has been clearly stated in Exhibit P-5 as Rs. 10,920.25. So, for 130 TV sets the value comes to Rs. 14,19,632.50 (sic). So the amount stated in Exhibit P-5 is correct and the value of 20 TV sets need not be deducted from the amount shown in Exhibit P-5-Invoice. But the rate of one TV set has been clearly stated in Exhibit P-5 as Rs. 10,920.25. So, for 130 TV sets the value comes to Rs. 14,19,632.50 (sic). So the amount stated in Exhibit P-5 is correct and the value of 20 TV sets need not be deducted from the amount shown in Exhibit P-5-Invoice. 9(e) Hence, I hold on the Issue No. 3 that the defendant have not acted upon the terms and conditions as per Exhibit P-15 dated 17.12.1990. 9(f) I hold on Issue No. 4 that the plaintiff has not violated the terms and conditions under Exhibit P-14. 9(g) I hold on Issue No. 5 that the plaintiff has not committed any breach of contract, and 9(h) I hold on Issue No. 6 that the defendant has not incurred any loss as alleged. 10. Issue No. 1: The learned counsel appearing for the defendant would contend that the defendants 2 to 5 are in no way liable for a personal decree if at all the plaintiff is entitled to any relief in the suit that can be granted only against Dl. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the defendants would rely on Hrushikesh Panda v. Indramani Swain, (Orissa) 1988 Company Cases, A Vol.63, Page 368, wherein it has been held that Director may be made personally liable only if found guilty of fraudulent trading and not otherwise. The same principle has been reiterated in Kuriakose v. K. V. Group Industries (Kerala) 2002 Company cases, Vol. III, Page 826, as follows: “There is no provision in the Companies Act, making the managing director of a private company personally liable for the recovery of dues against the company. The company is a separate legal entity and the liability of the company cannot be imposed on its officers or directors.” Further, P.W.1 In his evidence in cross-examination would admit that D2, D4 and D5 have not given any personal guarantee to the plaintiff as stated in their written statement. Admittedly, D3 is now no more. Under such circumstances, D1 alone is liable for the decree amount and D2, D4 and D5 are not personally liable for the decree amount. Hence, I hold on Issue No. 1 that the plaintiff can claim the suit amount from D1 and that D2, D4 and D5 are not personally liable for the decree amount. 11. Under such circumstances, D1 alone is liable for the decree amount and D2, D4 and D5 are not personally liable for the decree amount. Hence, I hold on Issue No. 1 that the plaintiff can claim the suit amount from D1 and that D2, D4 and D5 are not personally liable for the decree amount. 11. Issue No. 2:The last supply of the goods was as per invoice No. 350 dated 31.3.1991 and the suit is filed within 3 years i. e., on 30.4.1993 itself. Hence, I hold on Issue No. 2 that the suit is not barred by limitation. 12. 1ssue No. 7:- The plaintiff has claimed 20% interest for the principal sum of Rs. 21,51,132.50. Admittedly, there is no agreement, for the rate of interest between the plaintiff and the defendants. Under such circumstances, 12% interest per annum is a reasonable one. Hence, I hold on Issue No. 7 that the plaintiff is entitled to 12% interest per annum for the principal amount from the date of suit till the date of decree and 6% interest per annum from the date of decree till the date of realisation. 13. Issue No. 8:- In the result, the suit is decreed with proportionate costs and the plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs. 24,89,546.35 (Rupees Twenty Four lakhs eighty nine thousand five hundred and forty six and paise thirty five) (Rs. 21,51,132.50 + Rs. 3,38,413.85) with 12% interest per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and 6% interest per annum from the date of decree till the date of realisation on the principal sum of Rs. 21,51,132.50. D1 alone is liable to the decree amount. The suit in respect of other defendants stands dismissed.