JUDGMENT : AKIL KURESHI, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the original plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree of the Commercial Court, Vadodara, dated 05.08.2017 passed in Commercial Suit No.65 of 2016. By such judgment, the Trial Court was pleased to dismiss the suit of the present appellant. 2. Gujarat Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd., (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the GACL' for short)the present appellant, had filed a Special Civil Suit No.290 of 2004 before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vadodara, against the present respondents. Plaintiff is a company registered under the Companies Act and is engaged in the business of manufacture, sale and trading of Alkalies, chemicals and allied products. Defendant no.1 Pragati Progressive Pvt. Ltd. is a private limited company engaged in the business of trading in various chemicals. Defendant nos.2 and 3 were the directors of the defendant no.1 company at the relevant time. The plaintiff had filed the said suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,76,35,269/- with interest from the defendants. This prayer was based on following averments made in the suit. According to the plaintiff, the defendant nos.2 and 3 on behalf of defendant no.1 company had approached the plaintiff sometime in December, 2001, for appointing the defendant no.1 company as a dealer of the plaintiff's products. The defendants would execute necessary documents and agreements as per the requirements of the plaintiff company. The plaintiff agreed in principle to appoint defendant no.1 as dealer subject to execution of dealership agreement and providing necessary securities. The plaintiff thereafter started supplying to the defendants various products such as Hydrochloric Acid, Sodium Cyanide, Caustic Soda Lye, Caustic Potash Flakes, Carbon Tetrachloride, Dilute Sulphuric Acid etc. The plaintiff sold and delivered such goods to the defendants on exfactory basis. For sale of such goods, the plaintiff raised various invoices and bills during the period between 21.12.2001 and 01.12.2003. The invoices and bills were accepted by the defendants without any demur or dispute. Despite reminders from the plaintiff, dealership agreement was not executed. Bank guarantee was also not furnished by the defendants. The plaintiff had written several letters in this respect which were duly acknowledged by the defendants. 3. In the meantime, the plaintiff went on supplying the goods to the defendants on continuous basis raising regular invoices and bills. Yearly statement of accounts was also provided. Bank guarantee was also not furnished by the defendants. The plaintiff had written several letters in this respect which were duly acknowledged by the defendants. 3. In the meantime, the plaintiff went on supplying the goods to the defendants on continuous basis raising regular invoices and bills. Yearly statement of accounts was also provided. The defendants were liable to pay the sale price of these goods. However, according to the plaintiff, the defendants collected payments for goods sold by them but did not pay over the sale price to the plaintiff. 4. According to the plaintiff, the defendant started defaulting in making the payments for the goods delivered to them. The defendant no.1 in the letters dated 16.06.2002, 11.08.2003, 13.08.2003 and 07.08.2003 written to the plaintiff, admitted that there were outstanding amounts due to the plaintiff for supply of such goods. Finally when the defendants did not clear the dues, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 22.09.2003 demanding an unpaid sum of Rs.1,87,75,163/which included the principal sum of Rs.1,48,36,271/with interest calculated till that date. The defendant no.1 vide a letter dated 07.10.2003 admitted that the goods supplied by the plaintiff were received and that amount of Rs.1,80,43,653/- due and payable by the defendants to the plaintiff. We may however record that such letter has not been exhibited. 5. According to the plaintiff, as on 04.06.2004, a sum of Rs.1,39,90,963/- remained outstanding payable by the defendants to the plaintiff for the period between 10.11.2001 to 04.06.2004. Since despite efforts by the plaintiff, the defendants did not pay such sum, the said suit came to be filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,76,35,269/which included the outstanding amount of Rs.1,39,90,963/- and accrued interest of Rs.36,44,305/-. 6. The defendant no.1 filed a written statement Exh.12. In such written statement, it was averred that defendant nos.2 and 3 have no personal liability and therefore they were wrongly joined in the suit. It was denied that the defendant no.1 was a dealer of the plaintiff company. The factum of the plaintiff supplying the goods and raising invoices and bills was however admitted. The receipt of legal notice was admitted. It was however stated that even after such notice, the defendants had made certain payments towards the outstanding dues. The letter of 07.10.2003 written by the defendant no.1 was admitted. The factum of the plaintiff supplying the goods and raising invoices and bills was however admitted. The receipt of legal notice was admitted. It was however stated that even after such notice, the defendants had made certain payments towards the outstanding dues. The letter of 07.10.2003 written by the defendant no.1 was admitted. It was stated that during the period, the defendants had purchased goods worth approximately Rs.25 crores and made payment of approximately Rs.24 crores towards such purchases. The outstanding sum of Rs.1,39,90,963/- was however disputed. 7. In para 25 of the written statement, the defendant no.1 had given exact figures of the cost of materials purchased from the plaintiff and the actual payment made towards such purchases. These figures, according to the defendant no.1 were Rs.25,40,93,912/- and Rs.24,05,44,951/- respectively. The principal defense of the defendant no.1 for not paying the balance amount was that such goods were purchased by one S.P. Marketing who had directly approached the plaintiff company. However, since the plaintiff could not supply the goods to S.P. Marketing directly without any relationship, the plaintiff had requested the defendant no.1 to allow the plaintiff to raise the bills in the name of the said defendant for the goods to be supplied to the S.P. Marketing. The defendant had agreed to this arrangement. However, S.P. Marketing did not make payments to the defendant no.1 for such purchases and in turn, therefore, the defendant no.1 could not pay such sum to the plaintiff. We may record, the defense of the defendant no.1 in this respect in the precise terms as stated in the written statement as under: “25. The Defendant No.1 used to purchase chemicals from the Plaintiff and was supplying to its customers. The Defendant No.1 purchased the material from the Plaintiff worth Rs.25,40,93,912/- during the period between 27/10/1999 to 27/1/2004, and has also made the payments worth Rs.24,05,44,951/- up till now. During September to November 2002, the Plaintiff was having much stock of caustic soda lye and were not having sufficient storage capacity. One party named S.P. Marketing of Ahmedabad, approached the Plaintiff with a request to supply the said material to them. As the Plaintiff could not supply the said material directly without having any relationship, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant No.1 to allow the Plaintiff to raise the bills in Defendant No.1's name for the supplies made to S.P. Marketing. One party named S.P. Marketing of Ahmedabad, approached the Plaintiff with a request to supply the said material to them. As the Plaintiff could not supply the said material directly without having any relationship, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant No.1 to allow the Plaintiff to raise the bills in Defendant No.1's name for the supplies made to S.P. Marketing. As S.P. Marketing was known to the Defendant No.1, the Defendant No.1 allowed the Plaintiff to raise the bills in its name for the supplies made to S.P. Marketing. It was clear understanding between the Plaintiff and the Defendant No.1 that the Defendant No.1 will not be responsible for the payments of supplies made to S.P. Marketing, but, to facilitate the Plaintiff looking to the long relationship, the defendant No.1 allowed the Plaintiff to raise invoices in its name. The outstanding amount shown by the Plaintiff against the Defendant No.1 are for the supplies made to S.P. Marketing. S.P. Marketing issued cheques in the name of the Defendant No.1 as the Defendant No.1 had raised invoices on S.P. Marketing as per the instruction of the Plaintiff. S.P. Marketing issued five cheques on Central Bank of India, Ahmedabad Branch, each for an amount of Rs.24,98,151/-. Thus, the cheques totaling to Rs.1,24,90,755/= were issued by S.P. Marketing for the supplies made of the products of the Plaintiff. All theses cheques have been returned unpaid by the bankers of the S.P. Marketing and the Defendant No.1 has also taken legal action by filling the criminal complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against the said property. Thus, the outstanding amount shown by the Plaintiff against the Defendant is nothing but the amount outstanding from S.P. Marketing for the supplies made for the produces of the Plaintiff. Thus, no amount is outstanding and payable by the Defendant to the Plaintiff and the suit is not tenable.” 8. On the basis of such pleadings, the Trial Court had raised following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.1,76,35,269/from the defendants on account of the goods supplied to the defendants? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the plaintiff is entitled to recover interest? If yes, at what rate and for what period? 3. Whether the defendants prove that the suit of the plaintiff is bad for misjoinder of party, if yes than what effect? 4. 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the plaintiff is entitled to recover interest? If yes, at what rate and for what period? 3. Whether the defendants prove that the suit of the plaintiff is bad for misjoinder of party, if yes than what effect? 4. Whether the defendants prove that the suit of the plaintiff is bad for nonjoinder of the necessary party? 5. Whether the defendants prove that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by Limitation? 6. Whether the defendants prove that the goods relating to suit amount had been supplied to the SP marketing on behalf of the plaintiff, therefore the defendant is not liable to pay the suit amount? 9. The plaintiff examined one Vinay Thorat at Exh.174. In his sworn examination-in-chief, he reiterated the averments made in the plaint. He produced the invoices issued by the plaintiff which were exhibited at Exh.20 to Exh.165. In his further examination-in-chief, he produced at Exh.182 to Exh.185, several cheques issued by the defendant no.1 which had bounced. In the cross-examination, he denied that the plaintiff company had any dealings with S.P. Marketing. He denied that the unpaid dues were in relation to the goods sold by the plaintiff to S.P. Marketing. 10. The defendants examined two witnesses. One Rajendra Mashru, the defendant no.3 was examined at Exh.195. His testimony however was limited to the context of stating that since incorporation of the company, he was residing at Mumbai and was not involved in the day to day affairs of the company. More important evidence was that of Shri Manish Sharma, Exh.194defendant no.2. In his sworn examination-in-chief, he focused mainly on the tripartite dealings with the plaintiff company, the defendant no.1 company and the said S.P. Marketing. He stated that one Sanjay Parikh was running the business in the names of S.P. Marketing and Asal Marketing. He had good relations with the authorities and therefore approached the company to supply of Caustic Soda Lye. He further stated that said Sanjay Parikh was not consumer of the product of the plaintiff company. He wanted to sell the products to the consumers. The plaintiff company could not sell such products to him directly. The plaintiff company therefore started selling the material to S.P. Marketing upon placing of the orders. The invoices were raised in the name of the defendant no.1 company. He wanted to sell the products to the consumers. The plaintiff company could not sell such products to him directly. The plaintiff company therefore started selling the material to S.P. Marketing upon placing of the orders. The invoices were raised in the name of the defendant no.1 company. The plaintiff and particularly, one Shri N.K.Sachar, General Manager (Marketing) of the plaintiff company assured the defendant no.1 that the payments will be made regularly by S.P. Marketing to defendant no.1 upon issuing the bills in the name of the said S.P. Marketing. In further examination-in-chief, he stated that S.P. Marketing had issued several cheques to the defendant no.1 for payments. Five of six such cheques had however bounced, for which, the company had filed cheque bouncing complaints against the payer. His company was maintaining the ledger account of S.P. Marketing. As per such accounts for the period between 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2005, S.P. Marketing had to pay a sum of Rs.1,22,00,000/- to the defendant no.1. 11. In the cross-examination, he was shown document Exh.197 and agreed that the same did not contain the signature of Shri Sachar. 12. In addition to such oral evidence, the parties had also produced certain documents. We may refer to the relevant documents only. The plaintiff had produced legal notice at Exh.168 titled as final notice of demand dated 22.09.2003. Under this notice, demand of sum of Rs.1,87,75,163/- was made from the defendant no.1 company as per the regular books of accounts maintained by the plaintiff looking to the invoices for the sales made after adjusting the amounts paid by the defendant no.1 for such purchasers. 13. At Exhibits20 to 165, the plaintiff has produced different invoices raised by the plaintiff for supply of goods by the defendant no.1 for the said period. 14. The defendant had produced a letter dated 29.12.2004 at Exh.192 written by the defendant no.1 company to the plaintiff suggesting certain discrepancies in the accounts which could not be reconciled. Along with such letter, enclosures were attached pointing out sums wrongly debited in the account of the defendant and credit not given for the payments made. Under the head 'amounts to be deducted from the accounts', a sum of Rs.4,42,002/was indicated and under the head of the credit yet to be received from the plaintiff, a total sum of Rs.1,66,928/was shown. 15. Under the head 'amounts to be deducted from the accounts', a sum of Rs.4,42,002/was indicated and under the head of the credit yet to be received from the plaintiff, a total sum of Rs.1,66,928/was shown. 15. At Exh.196, the defendants produced a letter dated 09.10.2002 written by Sanjay Parikh for S.P. Marketing to the defendant no.1 confirming supply of Caustic Soda Lye by the defendant no.1 to the said company in the Month of September, 2002. At Exh.197 are the minutes of joint meeting between the representatives of S.P. Marketing, M/s.Pragati Progressive Pvt. Ltd. i.e. the defendant no.1 and the officers of the GACL i.e. the plaintiff. This records that the S.P. Marketing would give L/C for Rs.35 to 40 lakhs by March 2003, towards old outstanding payables to the defendant no.1 and a bank guarantee of Rs.50 lakhs to the GACL, upon which, the GACL will supply material to the S.P. Marketing, for which, cheques would be issued. This also records that the GACL will restart supplies to the defendant no.1 upon fulfillment of the said conditions. Significantly however, this letter does not contain the signature of Shri Sachar who is supposed to be present for and on behalf of the GACL. 16. Exh.198 is a letter written by S.P. Marketing to the defendant no.1 seeking installments for payment of outstanding dues of Rs.1,24,90,759/-. In such letter, it was stated that as a result of severe financial crises and unforeseen circumstances, the company could not make payment. However, the same would be made in five monthly installments between June, 2003 to March, 2004. 17. At Exh.199, we have a letter from S.P. Marketing to defendant no.1 which has a reference to a joint meeting between the representatives of the said two companies and Shri Sachar of GACL held on 02.12.2003. In furtherance to the discussions, S.P. Marketing had supplied salt to GACL. The payment would be adjusted against the outstanding payable to M/s.Pragati Progressive i.e. the defendant no.1. Likewise, S.P. Marketing would also supply 1 lakh HDPE bags per month to the GACL. The payments thereof would also be adjusted against the sums payable to Pragati Progressive. On 11.03.2004, Sanjay Parikh for S.P. Marketing wrote to the Pragati Progressive (Exh.201) and stated that “We have confirmed to supply Salt to Gujarat Alkalis & Chemicals Ltd directly through our supplier ASAL MARKETING PVT. LTD. The payments thereof would also be adjusted against the sums payable to Pragati Progressive. On 11.03.2004, Sanjay Parikh for S.P. Marketing wrote to the Pragati Progressive (Exh.201) and stated that “We have confirmed to supply Salt to Gujarat Alkalis & Chemicals Ltd directly through our supplier ASAL MARKETING PVT. LTD. against outstanding payable by us to you and the same will be adjusted against the outstanding payable by you to them.” 18. On the basis of such evidence on record, the learned Judge delivered the impugned judgment. He held all issues in the negative. Resultantly, he dismissed the suit. If we refer to these issues, the issues no.1 and 2 were raised at the instance of the plaintiff and related to the questions whether the plaintiff proved that it is entitled to recover Rs.1,76,35,269/- on account of goods supplied and whether the plaintiff proves that it is entitled to recover interest. Both these questions were answered in the negative. The remaining issues were in context of the defense raised by the defendants. It was held that the suit did not suffer from the misjoinder of parties, that the suit was not bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties, that the suit was not barred by limitation. Significantly, the issue no.6 which was, “whether the defendants prove that the goods relating to suit amount had been supplied to S.P. Marketing on behalf of the plaintiff and that therefore the defendants were not liable to pay the suit amount”, was also answered in the negative. In other words, the learned Judge did not accept the defendants' version that the short payment was relatable to the goods supplied by the GACL to S.P. Marketing, the defendant no.1 being only a conduit on paper. 19. In order to come to the negative conclusions with respect to issues no.1 and 2, the learned Judge referred to the evidence on record. Reference was made to Exhs.20 to 166 which were various invoices produced by the plaintiff. He did agree that these invoices corroborated the version of the plaintiff that the goods were supplied to the defendants. However, according to the learned Judge, the dispute was regarding the amount which remained unpaid. To prove the outstanding dues, the plaintiff had filed a statement of accounts at mark 16/164 and 16/165. He did agree that these invoices corroborated the version of the plaintiff that the goods were supplied to the defendants. However, according to the learned Judge, the dispute was regarding the amount which remained unpaid. To prove the outstanding dues, the plaintiff had filed a statement of accounts at mark 16/164 and 16/165. But these statements of accounts were not proved by the plaintiff and the same were therefore not exhibited. The learned Judge was of the opinion that these accounts were computerized statements of accounts and along with the statements, the plaintiff had not produced a certificate as required under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned Judge referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer and others reported in (2014) 10 SCC 473 and held that the documents produced at Mark 16/164 and 16/165 were not proved by the plaintiff. 20. The advocate of the plaintiff had however argued before the Court that there was admission by the defendants. This argument was discarded by referring to para 25 of the written statement filed by the defendant no.1. Learned Judge was of the opinion that the said defendant had clearly disputed its liability. He noted that in such written statement, the defendant no.1 had averred that liability to pay the outstanding dues was of S.P. Marketing. The answer to issue no.2 i.e. the interest payable on principal sum was a natural corollary to the answer to the first issue. 21. Regarding issue no.6, the learned Judge observed that to prove its version, the defendant no.1 had not examined any witness from S.P. Marketing and even otherwise the documentary evidence produced by the defendants did not clearly establish such fact. The issue was therefore decided against the defendants. This finding, the counsel for the defendants strongly opposed before us arguing that there was ample evidence to prove the version of the defendants. 22. The questions which arise for our consideration out of such judgment of the Trial Court are as under: I. Whether the Trial Court was correct in holding that the documents mark 16/164 and 16/165 were not admissible since certificate under section 65B of the Evidence Act was not produced by the plaintiffs? II. Whether there was any admission on the part of the defendants that any sum remained outstanding and payable by the defendants to the plaintiff? II. Whether there was any admission on the part of the defendants that any sum remained outstanding and payable by the defendants to the plaintiff? In other words, can the plaintiff succeed even in absence of the documents mark 16/164 and 16/165 being taken into consideration? III. Whether the Trial Court was correct in rejecting the defendants' version that the shortfall in payment by defendant no.1 to the plaintiff was in relation to the goods directly supplied by the plaintiff to S.P. Marketing and only for convenience, invoices were raised against the defendant no.1 company? 23. We have heard learned advocates for the parties at considerable length. They have cited certain judgments in support of their contentions. We would refer to such judgments when we deal with the contentions in the context of each question. 24. Regarding question no.1, undisputed fact is that the documents mark 16/164 and 16/165 were statement of accounts which were computerized statements. These statements were not proved by the witness of the plaintiff in his examination. Section 65B of the Evidence Act pertains to admissibility of electronic records. Subsection (1) of section 65B provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media, produced by a computer shall be deemed to be a document, if the conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to information and computer in question and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original, as evidence of any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible. Subsection (4) of section 65B reads as under: “65B(4) In assessment year proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things, that is to say, (a) identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced; (b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a computer; (c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in subsection (2) relate, and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes of this subsection it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it.” 25. This provision came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in case of P.K. Basheer and others (supra). The three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that the certificate referred to in subsection (4) of section 65B of the Act is a mandatory prerequirement for admissibility of the electronic record. The Court held and observed as under: “22. The evidence relating to electronic record, as noted hereinbefore, being a special provision, the general law on secondary evidence under Section 63 read with Section 65 of the Evidence Act shall yield to the same. Generalia specialibus non derogant, special law will always prevail over the general law. It appears, the court omitted to take note of Sections 59 and 65A dealing with the admissibility of electronic record. Section 63 and 65 have no application in the case of secondary evidence by way of electronic record; the same is wholly governed by Sections 65A and 65B. To that extent, the statement of law on admissibility of secondary evidence pertaining to electronic record, as stated by this Court in Navjot Sandhu case, does not lay down the correct legal position. It requires to be overruled and we do so. An electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in evidence unless the requirements under Section 65B are satisfied. It requires to be overruled and we do so. An electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in evidence unless the requirements under Section 65B are satisfied. Thus, in the case of CD VCD, chip, etc., the same shall be accompanied by the certificate in terms of Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible.” 26. The question is thus settled by the said judgment of the Supreme Court. The Trial Court therefore correctly refused exhibit such documents and relying upon them. Counsel for the appellant however, referred to and relied upon a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Shafhi Mohammad v. the State of Himachal Pradesh passed in Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No.2302 of 2017, an observation is made that the requirement of certificate under section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act is not always mandatory. This observation was however immediately clarified by observing that when a party who is not in possession of the device from which the document is produced, cannot be required to produce certificate under section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act and the applicability of requirement of certificate can be related by the Court whenever interest of justice so requires. This judgment rendered by the two Judge bench of the Supreme Court, nowhere makes any observations contrary to the earlier three Judge bench in case of P.K. Basheer and others (supra). The ratio laid down therein still holds viz. for electronic evidence to be admissible certificate in terms of section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act is mandatory. The same has not been produced in the present case. The learned Judge correctly refused to accept the same and rely upon the contents thereof. 27. Question nos.2 and 3 substantially overlap. We may therefore take them up commonly for discussion. We may recall, the case of the appellant before us was that the defendant no.1 had admitted the dues in the written statement. No further proof of the outstanding was therefore necessary. Defendant no.1 on the other hand argued that the invoices were in relation to sales of goods directly made by the plaintiff to S.P. Marketing and it was only out of convenience that invoices were raised to the defendants. The learned Judge interestingly rejected both the theories. No further proof of the outstanding was therefore necessary. Defendant no.1 on the other hand argued that the invoices were in relation to sales of goods directly made by the plaintiff to S.P. Marketing and it was only out of convenience that invoices were raised to the defendants. The learned Judge interestingly rejected both the theories. The learned Judge rejected the plaintiff's case that the defendant had admitted the dues and also the defendants' theory that there was any arrangement between the GACL, S.P. Marketing and Pragati Progressive as suggested by the defendants. 28. In our understanding, the learned Judge committed an error in appreciating the plaintiff's evidence in this respect. The plaintiff's case was that the defendant no.1 had admitted the shortfall in the payments. The dues therefore were not disputed. The plaintiff's further case was that the defendants' theory that the goods were supplied by the plaintiff to S.P. Marketing and only invoices for convenience were raised against the defendant no.1 was incorrect. In this context, the learned Judge referred to the averments made by the defendant no.1 in para 25 of the written statement and held that the theory of the defendants having admitted the dues is not quite true. In our opinion, the crux of the matter lies in ascertaining whether the defendant no.1 had in any manner admitted any outstanding amounts due and payable to the plaintiff? If the answer to this question is in affirmative to the extent of such admitted outstanding amount, the plaintiff was not required to produce any proof. Then the defense of the defendants that these outstanding payments were in relation to goods directly supplied by the plaintiff to S.P. Marketing, would assume great significance. 29. In this context, we may recall, in the suit, the plaintiff had averred that for the goods supplied by the plaintiff to defendant no.1 over a span of about two years, a sum of Rs.1,39,90,963/- remained unpaid. Interest thereon at the rate of 18% till filing of the suit which came to Rs.36,44,305/-. The defendants thus had to pay a total of Rs.1,76,35,269/- to the plaintiff. 30. In response to such suit, in the written statement, the defendant no.1 did not dispute the relations with the plaintiff. Interest thereon at the rate of 18% till filing of the suit which came to Rs.36,44,305/-. The defendants thus had to pay a total of Rs.1,76,35,269/- to the plaintiff. 30. In response to such suit, in the written statement, the defendant no.1 did not dispute the relations with the plaintiff. In fact, it was stated that during the period between 27.10.1999 to 27.01.2004, the plaintiff had supplied goods to the defendant no.1 worth Rs.25,40,93,912/-, against which, the defendants had paid a total of Rs.24,05,44,951/-. Thus, in the first portion of this para 25, the defendant no.1 clearly admitted the full payment over the goods supplied by the plaintiff not having been made. The defendant, in fact, admitted to a shortfall of Rs.1,35,48,961/-. In the said para, the defendant no.1 thereafter gave its own version of the tripartite relationship between the plaintiff, the defendant no.1 and the S.P. Marketing contending that the S.P. Marketing had issued five cheques to the defendant no.1 each of Rs.24,98,151/-. These five cheques would therefore cover a total sum of Rs.1,24,90,755/-. These cheques upon presentation, however, returned unpaid by the bank, for which, the defendant has also instituted complaints under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It was therefore contended that “thus, the outstanding amounts shown by the plaintiff against the defendants is nothing but the amount outstanding from S.P. Marketing for the supplies made for the products of the plaintiff.” 31. This written statement of the defendant no.1 therefore clearly establishes three things: I. Firstly, against the periodic supplies made by the plaintiff to the defendant no.1 over about four years, payments were made by the defendant no.1 to the plaintiff company, but there was a shortfall of more than Rs.1.35 crores in such payments. II. According to the defendant no.1, the goods were supplied by the plaintiff directly to S.P. Marketing. However, S.P. Marketing had issued cheques for a total of Rs.1,24,90,755/- to the defendant no.1 towards price of such goods. III. According to the defendant no.1, these cheques having bounced, the payments were not made by the defendant no.1 to the plaintiff of matching sum and this is where the shortfall occurred. 32. If we look at these statements in proper perspective, it undoubtedly does not admit the defendant no.1's dues to the plaintiff. Since the defense taken is that these are not the dues of the defendant no.1 company at all. 32. If we look at these statements in proper perspective, it undoubtedly does not admit the defendant no.1's dues to the plaintiff. Since the defense taken is that these are not the dues of the defendant no.1 company at all. However, if we segregate the statement in two parts, there is a clear admission on the part of the defendant no.1 that certain sums as per the accounts between the plaintiff and the defendants no.1 had remained outstanding. In the first part of para 25, the defendant no.1 admits to a shortfall of Rs.1,35,48,961/-. In the later portion, the defendant no.1 refers to a total amount of Rs.1,24,90,755/- covered under five cheques issued by S.P. Marketing which had remained unpaid to the plaintiff since the cheques of S.P. Marketing had bounced. When we are referring to an admission of a party, we must refer to what is unequivocal. Out of two admissions of slightly different figures of the sums remaining outstanding, we would take the lesser of the two figures. At any rate therefore, the defendant no.1 in its written statement did admit to the shortfall of Rs.1,24,90,759/- towards the bills and invoices raised to the plaintiff for supply of goods. The learned Judge committed an error in not appreciating the written statement from this angle. We may also refer to letter Exh.192 dated 29.12.2004 written on behalf of the defendant no.1 to the plaintiff. In such letter, certain issues of discrepancies in the accounts was raised which according to the defendants, required reconciliation. On two issues, reconciliation was sought viz. the debit wrongly recorded in the accounts of the defendant and the credits of certain payments already made not granted. On the first issue, the total dispute raised by the defendant no.1 was for a sum of Rs.4,42,000/- and on the second dispute, was for a total sum of Rs.1,66,928/-. Thus, barring these two sundry amounts, the defendants even in the said letter dated 29.12.2004 did not dispute the accounts of the plaintiff. 33. This brings us to the validity of the defense of the defendant no.1 that the outstanding amount related only to the goods supplied by the plaintiff directly to S.P. Marketing. The records undisputedly show that such goods were supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant no.1 and for such purpose, invoices were also raised. Even the defendant no.1 does not dispute this position. The records undisputedly show that such goods were supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant no.1 and for such purpose, invoices were also raised. Even the defendant no.1 does not dispute this position. When defendant no.1 therefore raised the defense which runs contrary to such primafacie evidence on record, heavy onus lied on such defendant to establish its defense. As correctly observed by the learned Judge, no witness in this respect was examined from S.P. Marketing. Primarily, therefore, what we have on record is an oral assertion of the defendant no.2 in his deposition Exh.194 and some correspondences interparty. We have briefly referred to such letters and documents while taking note of the documentary evidence on record. We may once again refer to the relevant portions thereof. 34. In the letter Exh.196 dated 09.10.2002, Sanjay Parikh for S.P. Marketing wrote to defendant no.1 confirming the statement of supply of Caustic Soda Lye by the defendant no.1 to the said company. This document if at all further establishes the relationship between the defendant no.1 and S.P. Marketing. Under letter Exh.198, once again S.P. Marketing wrote to the defendant no.1 and expressed its regret for not having been able to make regular payments and sought five monthly installments to clear entire dues of Rs.1,24,90,759/. Along with this letter, five postdated cheques were also enclosed. This order also further establishes the relationship between the defendant no.1 and S.P. Marketing. In this order, there is no mention about any arrangement with the plaintiff company. Both these letters, in fact, run contrary to the theory of the defendants. 35. We must however refer to three other documents which make a reference to the tripartite relationship between defendant no.1, plaintiff and S.P. Marketing. At Exh.197, we have minutes of joint meeting, as per which, the S.P. Marketing would give letter of credit for the outstanding payable to the defendant no.1, make payment for the current purchases, upon which, defendant no.1 would resume supplies to the S.P. Marketing and the plaintiff in turn, would resume supplies to the defendant no.1. This document however does not contain signature of any of the officers of the GACL. It is signed only by the representatives of the Pragati Progressive i.e. the defendant no.1. 36. This document however does not contain signature of any of the officers of the GACL. It is signed only by the representatives of the Pragati Progressive i.e. the defendant no.1. 36. Exh.199 is a letter dated 05.12.2003 written by S.P. Marketing to Pragati Progressive indicating an arrangement, under which, the price for supply of salt and HDPE bags to the plaintiff would be directly adjusted against the dues of S.P. Marketing to defendant no.1. Exh.201 is a letter from Sanjay Parikh to Pragati Progressive reiterating this arrangement. 37. For several reasons, this evidence is insufficient for us to accept the defendant's theory. As noted, the documents produced by the plaintiffs and not disputed by the defendants established supply of goods in question to the defendant no.1, for which, invoices were raised. The letters exchanged between the S.P. Marketing and the defendant no.1, in particular, Exh.196 and Exh.198 further confirm this position. The remaining documents did not, in any manner, dislodge this position. The minutes of the so-called tripartite meeting do not carry the signature of the representative of the plaintiff. The remaining two documents Exh.199 and 201 are the letters written by the defendant no.1 and Pragati Progressive respectively to each other recording an arrangement under which whatever goods S.P. Marketing would supply to GACL, instead of GACL making payment to S.P. Marketing, the same would be adjusted against the dues of the S.P. Marketing to the defendant no.1 and whose accounts with the plaintiff would be squared up to that extent. In absence of any evidence that the plaintiff was party to this tripartite arrangement, the defendants cannot succeed in proving the very arrangement itself. Even if this arrangement is believed, the same would not automatically established the defendant's defense. According to the plaintiff, the scenario was that the plaintiff had supplied goods to the defendant no.1. Even if such goods were supplied by defendant no.1 to S.P. Marketing and S.P. Marketing did not make payment for such goods to the defendant no.1, the said defendant cannot avoid its liability to make payment for the purchases made by it from the plaintiff. 38. Even if such goods were supplied by defendant no.1 to S.P. Marketing and S.P. Marketing did not make payment for such goods to the defendant no.1, the said defendant cannot avoid its liability to make payment for the purchases made by it from the plaintiff. 38. Thus, the situation was that if the plaintiff had supplied the goods to the defendant no.1, who in turn had sold part of it to S.P. Marketing and was unable to make payment to the plaintiff because S.P. Marketing defaulted in its obligation, the above noted arrangement was perfectly natural. Even in such a scenario, the three parties involved in the process could have duly agreed to a formula, under which, for the supply of goods by S.P. Marketing to GACL, no payment would be made but the payment would be adjusted against the dues of the S.P. Marketing to Pragati Progressive and in turn, the accounts of Pragati Progressive with the plaintiff would be credited by matching amount. 39. All in all, the defendants failed in establishing that there was a direct relationship between the plaintiff and S.P. Marketing and the defendant no.1 was only a paper conduit. When we hold that the defendant no.1 had admitted to a shortfall of Rs.1,24,90,755/- in the written statement and when the defendants failed to prove its theory, that the sum pertained to goods directly supplied by the plaintiff to S.P. Marketing, decree for recovery of such sum with interest must follow. The calculation of interest on the principal sum till the date of filing of suit would pause some challenge. The goods were supplied between 21.12.2001 to 01.12.2003. The suit was filed on 18.06.2004. The interest computed at the time of filing of the suit at 18% per annum. There is no clause shown to us in the contract between the parties determining such interest. We would therefore grant interest till the date of filing of the suit at the rate of 9% per annum. The period during which such period is calculated may not be possible to calculate with mathematical precision. Taking note of the span of supply of goods and the fact that the suit was filed nearly six months after the last supply, we grant interest for a period of one year at 9% on the said sum of Rs.1,24,90,755/-. This comes to Rs.11,24,167/-. The total thereof will come to Rs.1,36,14,922/-. Taking note of the span of supply of goods and the fact that the suit was filed nearly six months after the last supply, we grant interest for a period of one year at 9% on the said sum of Rs.1,24,90,755/-. This comes to Rs.11,24,167/-. The total thereof will come to Rs.1,36,14,922/-. The plaintiff shall recover such sum of Rs.1,36,14,922/- with further interest at the rate of 9% from the date of the suit till actual recovery with proportionate costs. A decree may be drawn accordingly. 40. First Appeal is allowed to the above extent and disposed of. 41. At this stage, learned counsel for the defendants requested for staying this judgment to enable the defendants to prefer an appeal. This judgment shall stand stayed till 05.11.2018.