JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J: Plaintiff-Company is a Private Limited Company. It was incorporated on 08.03.1988. The registered office of the Company is at Village and Post Office Kandrori, District Kangra, H.P. Smt. Meenakshi Sood, being the Managing Director of the plaintiff-company, has been authorized to institute the present 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. suit vide Board resolution, dated 19.11.2009. The plaintiff-company is into the business of manufacturing of Iron and Steel and deals in business of Iron masters, steel makers, steel converters, smelters, engineers, tin plate makers, iron founders and manufactures bars and rods etc. Defendant No. 1, i.e., Tripura Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. is a Private Limited Company. It deals in erection and construction works etc. Defendants No. 2 and 3 are the directors of defendant No. 1-Company. The defendant-Company alongwith defendants No. 2 and 3 have approached the plaintiff-Company in the month of December, 2006 for the supply of different types of produces of iron and steels, as the defendants were requiring the said products for the purpose of carrying out the construction activities undertaken at Uhal Project, Jogindernagar. The defendant-company and defendants No. 2 and 3, being the Directors of Tripura Colonizers Private Limited, submitted to the plaintiff-company and its officials that the iron and steel material of different makes and type, as required, would be purchased by them on credit basis and the payment will be made within the period of week or two from the date of purchase of iron and steel materials. The iron and steel material was purchased by the defendants from the plaintiff. The payments were also being made by the defendants, though not within a period of week or two, as was promised by Mr. Naresh Kumar and Mr. Sudhir Kumar, but were being made irregularly and several times, the plaintiff-company and it’s officials asked the defendants to improve upon the payment schedule. The defendants were not making the payments bill-wise, but used to make payment from time to time irrespective of bills. Naresh Kumar and Mr. Sudhir Kumar, but were being made irregularly and several times, the plaintiff-company and it’s officials asked the defendants to improve upon the payment schedule. The defendants were not making the payments bill-wise, but used to make payment from time to time irrespective of bills. The defendants have purchased from the plaintiff-company w.e.f. 05.01.2007 to 10.06.2007 iron and steel of different types vide bill No. 833, amounting to `3,53,916.00, bill No. 836, amounting to `3,78,244.00, bill No. 837, amounting to `3,21,910.00, bill No.838, amounting to `3,49,126.00, bill No. 846, amounting to `3,44,069.00, bill No. 847, amounting to `57,924.00, bill No. 856, amounting to `3,73,754.00, bill No. 861, amounting to `3,81,575.00, bill No. 877, amounting to `3,86,064.00, bill No. 879, amounting to `57,924.00, bill No. 880, amounting to `4,34,430.00, bill No. 43, amounting to `4,09,744.00, bill No. 72, amounting to `3,83,919.00, bill No. 96, amounting to `4,02,544.00, bill No. 110, amounting to `3,94,584.00, bill NO. 115, amounting to `3,66,132.00, bill No. 137, amounting to `2,55,908.00, bill No. 139, amounting to `3,95,060.00 and bill No. 196, amounting to `3,56,362/-. The payments towards iron and steel products sold were received from the defendant-company and defendants No. 2 and 3 vide DD No. 478636, dated 15.2.2007, amounting to `7,97,200.00/-, DD No. 096373, dated 17.02.2007, amounting to `5,75,000.00/-, DD No. 478710, dated 26.02.2007, amounting to `4,50.000/- and vide Cheque No. 089007, dated 29.03.2007, amounting to `3,00,000/-, Cheque No. 716015, dated 30.04.2007, amounting to `2,00,000/- and Cheque No. 089014, dated 20.06.2007, amounting to `12,50,000.00/-. However, the entire payment was not made to the plaintiff-Company. The defendant-company, through its Directors, in order to liquidate and discharge the liability towards the outstanding amount, in respect of purchase of iron and steel of different types and nature, issued a Cheque, dated 09.07.2007, for a sum of `28,30,989/- bearing No. 228899, drawn on State Bank of India, Bhuntar, H.P. The said Cheque was presented by the plaintiff-company to its banker, but the Cheque was dishonored vide memo, dated 17.12.2007. The plaintiff-company was intimated to this effect by the bankers on 22.12.2007. This fact was brought to the notice of defendant No. 1-company and its Director defendant No. 2, who assured that the payment either in cash or by way of demand draft would be made, but they have failed to do so. The plaintiff-company was intimated to this effect by the bankers on 22.12.2007. This fact was brought to the notice of defendant No. 1-company and its Director defendant No. 2, who assured that the payment either in cash or by way of demand draft would be made, but they have failed to do so. A legal notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act was also issued on 07.01.2008. The plaintiff-company has approached the defendant-company as well as defendants No. 2 and 3 to pay the amount and to liquidate the liability, but despite the defendants having promised to liquidate the liability, they have failed to pay an amount of `28,30,989/-. The cause of action has arisen to the plaintiff-company on 05.01.2007, 06.01.2007, 07.01.2007, 09.01.2007, 11.01.2007, 14.01.2007, 20.01.2007, 18.04.2007, 26.04.2007, 06.05.2007, 10.05.2007, 11.05.2007, 18.05.2007, 19.05.2007 and 10.06.2007. It is in these circumstances, the present suit has been filed for recovery of `28,30,989/-alongwith future interest @ `18% per annum from the date of filing of suit till its realization. 2. The defendants were served by way of publication in news paper “Divya Himachal”. There was no representation made by the defendants either personally or through Advocate. Consequently, they were proceeded ex parte on 22.06.2011. 3. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 09.08.2011. 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of `28,30,989/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum? OPP 2. Relief. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and gone through the records carefully. 5. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter while discussing the issues, my findings to the issues are as under: Issues No. 1 : Yes. Relief : The suit is decreed as per operative portion of the judgment. REASONS FOR FINDINGS ISSUE NO. 1 6. Smt. Meenakshi Sood (PW-1) has proved the extract of the Board’s resolution, dated 19th November, 2009, authorizing her to file the present suit vide Ex. PW-1/A/Ex. PW-1/B. She has also proved the copy of certificate of incorporation by the plaintiff-company vide Ex. PW-1/C and Memorandum and Articles of Association of plaintiff-company vide Ex. PW-1/D. According to her, the plaintiff-company manufactures iron and steel products. She knew defendants No. 2 and 3 personally. According to her, the defendants No. 2 and 3 are the Directors of defendant No. 1Company, i.e., Tripura Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., Manikaran Road, Bhuntar, Kullu. PW-1/C and Memorandum and Articles of Association of plaintiff-company vide Ex. PW-1/D. According to her, the plaintiff-company manufactures iron and steel products. She knew defendants No. 2 and 3 personally. According to her, the defendants No. 2 and 3 are the Directors of defendant No. 1Company, i.e., Tripura Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., Manikaran Road, Bhuntar, Kullu. The defendant-company is engaged in the construction work. The defendants have approached the plaintiff for supply of tor steel in the month of December, 2006. The tor steel was supplied subsequently vide invoices, Ex. PW-1/E to Ex. PW-1/W. The tor steel worth `64 lakhs was supplied to the defendants by the plaintiff-firm. The defendants used to make the consolidated payment to the plaintiff-firm. According to her, the plaintiff-company has received about `35 lakhs from the defendants-company. A balance sum of `28,30,989/- was payable by the defendants-company to the plaintiff-company. The defendants though have issued a Cheque for `28,30,989, but the same was dishonoured. A copy of dishonour memo and cheque issued by the State Bank of India, Bhuntar Branch, dated 17.12.2007, are Ex. PW-1/X-1 to Ex. PW-1/X-4. A legal notice, dated 07.01.2008, was issued to the defendants to pay a sum of `28,30,989/. A copy of the notice is Ex. PW-1/Y. The plaintiff-company is maintaining its regular books of accounts. The same were produced in original before the Registry and were seen by the Registrar (Vigilance), H.P. High Court. He has seen the same and returned. The photo copies of relevant portion of the book of accounts of the dealing of plaintiff with defendants are Ex. PW-1/Z (containing 27 leaves). The accounts of the plaintiff-company were audited by the Charted Accountant. The balance sheet audited by the Charted Accountant is Ex. PW-1/AA (25 leaves), Ex. PW-1/BB (22 leaves) and Ex. PW-1/CC (21 leaves) for the years 2007, 2008 and 2009 collectively. 7. PW-2 is Manohar Lal. He is working as Accountant of the plaintiff-company since 1988. He has been maintaining the records/accounts of the plaintiff-company regularly on computer. He has been maintaining the ledgers account sales, VAT, Octroi, Toll Tax of the plaintiff-company for the period 05.01.2007 onwards, copy of which is Ex. PW-2/A (containing 49 leavers). He has also maintained the ledger accounts of defendant No. 1company with effect from 01.04.2006 to 15.01.2010 vide Ex. PW-2/B collectively (containing 6 leaves). He personally fed the data in the computer. PW-2/A (containing 49 leavers). He has also maintained the ledger accounts of defendant No. 1company with effect from 01.04.2006 to 15.01.2010 vide Ex. PW-2/B collectively (containing 6 leaves). He personally fed the data in the computer. The computer always remained in his custody. The defendants-company has purchased tor steel from the plaintiff-company worth `64 lakhs, but now they have to pay the balance amount of `28,30,989/-. They used to make consolidated payment instead of bill-wise payment. The defendants have also issued a cheque, but the same was dishonoured. The certificate to this effect was issued by the State Bank of India Branch, Bhuntar vide Ex. PW-1/X-1 to Ex. PW-1/X-4. 8. PW-1, Smt. Meenakshi Sood has been duly authorized by the Company by passing a resolution, dated 19.11.2009, to file the present suit. The plaintiff-company is into the business of manufacturing of Iron and Steel products. The defendant-company undertakes construction works. The defendants have approached the plaintiff-company for the supply of steel products in the month of December, 2006. The material was purchased by the defendants for Uhal Project Jogindernagar, Tripura Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. The same was supplied to the defendants. The defendants have been making the payments on consolidated basis instead of bill-wise. It is evident from the ocular statements of PW1 and PW-2 and the documents proved on record that the plaintiff-company has supplied steel products to the defendants worth `64 lakhs. The defendants have made only a payment of `35 lakhs. A balance sum of `28,30,989/- is payable by the defendants as per the accounts maintained by the plaintiff-company. The records have been maintained as per law by the plaintiff-company. These are being maintained by PW-2. The accounts of the company were duly verified by the Charted Accountant. The balance sheets have been proved. The defendant-company has issued a Cheque of `28,30,989/-, which was dishonoured. The notice was issued to the defendants. Thereafter, a legal notice was also issued to the defendants to pay a sum of `28,30,989/-. This notice has been duly proved vide Ex. PW-1/Y. The plaintiff has also proved the relevant portion of the book of accounts of the dealing of plaintiff with defendants vide Ex. PW-1/Z of all the three ledgers (containing 27 leaves). 9. PW-2, Manohar Lal has stated that he has been maintaining the ledger accounts of defendant-company with effect from 01.04.2006 to 15.01.2010 vide Ex. PW-2/B, collectively (containing 6 leaves). PW-1/Z of all the three ledgers (containing 27 leaves). 9. PW-2, Manohar Lal has stated that he has been maintaining the ledger accounts of defendant-company with effect from 01.04.2006 to 15.01.2010 vide Ex. PW-2/B, collectively (containing 6 leaves). The defendants have purchased the steel products from the plaintiff-company. But, they have failed to pay the balance amount of `28,30,989/-, despite they have been approached by the plaintiff-company and served with a legal notice. The suit is within limitation and proper court fee has been affixed. The cause of action has arisen to the plaintiff within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The cause of action has arisen to the plaintiff as per the details given in the opening portion of the judgment. Thus, the plaintiff-company has duly proved that the defendants have failed to pay a sum of `28,30,989/-to it, with agreed interest @18%. Accordingly, the issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. RELIEF 10. In view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs. A decree of `28,30,989/- alongwith future interest @ `18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed.