JUDGMENT : SAHIDULLAH MUNSHI, J. 1. The Court: This is a suit for a decree for a specified sum of money with interim interest upon judgment @ 18% per annum. Summons are duly served upon the defendant. Despite service of summons no one chose to enter appearance in the matter and to contest the same by filing written statement. By an order dated 22nd November, 2017, relying on a report dated 1st November, 2017, furnished by the Department, this Court fixed the matter in the ‘undefended list’. Even when the matter was taken up as ‘undefended suit’, no one appeared for the defendant. Briefly, the plaint case is as follows:— Plaintiff, Con-cast Steel and Power Limited, claims to be a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. Under a scheme of amalgamation sanctioned by this Court on 26th November, 2015, Con-cast Bengal Industries Limited, Con-cast Global Limited, Dankuni Steel Limited, Co-cast Vyapaar Limited, Con-cast Is pat Limited, Surekha Exports Limited and Con-cast Exim Limited have merged with and their assets and properties have been transferred to and have stood vested in favour of the plaintiff herein, who is the resulting company thereunder. In respect of the merger the plaintiff has relied on the order dated 26th November, 2015, passed by this Court in Company Petition No. 1054 of 2014 which has been marked Exhibit ‘A’ to this proceeding. The plaintiff has stated that the suit relates to transactions concerning Con-cast Is pat Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘CIL’). The defendant held itself to be engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of iron and steel material. CIL in the usual course of business required iron and steel material. In October, 2009, the defendant Durgapur Steels Limited, being interested to sell iron and steel materials, approached CIL and thereafter, negotiations ensued between the defendant and CIL and it was agreed that:— (i) The defendant would sell 1250 MT of MS Billet to the plaintiff on ex godown basis @ Rs. 21,500/- per MT. (ii) The total consideration after addition excise duty and VAT would be Rs. 3,02,53,000/-, which would be paid in advance by the plaintiff. (iii) The specification of the material would be 100 × 100, grade C-20. 2. Terms of the agreement were recorded in a purchase order placed by CIL upon the defendant dated 10th October, 2009. 21,500/- per MT. (ii) The total consideration after addition excise duty and VAT would be Rs. 3,02,53,000/-, which would be paid in advance by the plaintiff. (iii) The specification of the material would be 100 × 100, grade C-20. 2. Terms of the agreement were recorded in a purchase order placed by CIL upon the defendant dated 10th October, 2009. Said purchase order was received and accepted by the defendant at its registered office at 8.C, Maharshi Debendra Road, Kolkata-700007. CIL, thereafter made over an advance of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crore) only, by a cheque and such cheque was presented for payment by the defendant and eventually, it was en-cashed. Defendant also issued a receipt dated 15th October, 2009 for the said sum of Rs. 3,00,00,000/-. Although, the defendant was required to sell and deliver the goods to the plaintiff forthwith, it did not do so and, thereby, causing inordinate delay in delivery of the goods to the plaintiff. Ultimately, the goods were not sold and delivered to CIL. CIL requested the defendant to repay the advance which had been made by CIL. The defendant agreed to do so and by a letter dated 10th February, 2011, forwarded a cheque dated 9th May, 2011 for a sum of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- to CIL. Subsequently, defendant informed the plaintiff that it could not arrange for funds and by an order dated 13th June, 2011 requested CIL not to present the said cheque. By a further letter dated 11th July, 2011 defendant informed CIL that it was even not in a position to make any payment immediately and prayed for further time. CIL, by its letter dated 15th June, 2014, requested the defendant to confirm the outstanding balance by a letter dated 30th June, 2015. The defendant confirmed the balance of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- as on 31st March, 2014. The defendant, however, acknowledged its liability and undertook to pay by 31st December, 2014. Despite demand by Advocate's letter dated 19th June, 2017, made on behalf of the plaintiff, the defendant failed and neglected to make payment of the said sum. Accordingly, the plaintiff claimed for a sum of Rs. 7,14,09,863/- which were due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff as on 19th June, 2017 being the date of demand. In paragraph 16 of the plaint, the plaintiff has given the particulars of claim, namely : (a) Principal sum Rs. Accordingly, the plaintiff claimed for a sum of Rs. 7,14,09,863/- which were due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff as on 19th June, 2017 being the date of demand. In paragraph 16 of the plaint, the plaintiff has given the particulars of claim, namely : (a) Principal sum Rs. 3,00,00,000.00/- (b) Interest @ 18% per annum from 15th October, 2009 to 19th June, 2017 Rs. 4,14,09,863.00/- Total Rs. 7,14,09,863.00/- 3. According to the plaintiff, they are entitled to further interest @ 18% per annum on the aforesaid sum on and from 20th June, 2017 and further interest upon judgment @ 18% per annum. 4. In support of the plaint case one, Mr. Vikash Jain appeared for the plaintiff and deposed on box. He deposed that he works for the company, Con-cast Steel and Power Limited, the plaintiff herein, as its Senior Executive. He further deposed that he has been working with the company as the Senior Executive since 1st May, 2013. During examination-in-chief, the witness deposed that eight companies got merged into one single company, that is, Con-cast Steel and Power Limited by the order of this Court. The document being the order dated 26th November, 2015 has been tendered and marked as Exhibit ‘A’. Exhibit ‘A’ also contains the scheme of amalgamation. The witness has tendered original purchase order dated 10th October, 2009 before the Court and the same has been marked as Exhibit ‘B’. From the document it appears that the total value of the consignment without tax is Rs. 2,68,75,000/- together with tax it would be Rs. 3,00,00,000/- approximately. The witness deposed that the payment was made through cheque and it was not made after receipt of the goods. It was in the nature of advance payment which is reflected also in the document being Exhibit ‘B’. The witness deposed that the purchase order has been accepted by the defendant and confirmed by the witness saying that the defendant signed on the purchase order and that apart they received advance payment of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- that was made by the plaintiff. Witness further deposed that Mr. Sandip Kumar Kedia, Director of Durgapur Steels Limited, accepted the purchase order and he knew his signature. Witness also placed before this Court a document being the Bank Statement (Exhibit ‘C’) which he collected from the Bank confirming that Rs. 3,00,00,000/- that was made by the plaintiff. Witness further deposed that Mr. Sandip Kumar Kedia, Director of Durgapur Steels Limited, accepted the purchase order and he knew his signature. Witness also placed before this Court a document being the Bank Statement (Exhibit ‘C’) which he collected from the Bank confirming that Rs. 3,00,00,000/- was credited to the account of the defendant, Durgapur Steels Limited and such payment was made by the plaintiff to the defendant on 15th October, 2009. The date mentioned in the statement has been identified by the witness and encircled in red pencil. 5. Therefore, there is no doubt that a payment of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- had been made by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant as evident from both the documents being Exhibits ‘B’ and ‘C’. Such payment of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- as received by the defendant has been further confirmed and evident from a receipt dated 15th October, 2009 which has been tendered by the witness and marked as Exhibit ‘D’. The witness deposed that the said receipt (Ext. ‘D’) was signed and issued by Mr. Sandip Kumar Kedia, Director of Durgapur Steels Limited and he deposed that such payment was made to Durgapur Steels Limited for purchase of 215 MT of MS billet. The original letter dated 10th February, 2011 issued by Mr. Sandip Kumar Kedia, whose signature has been identified by the witness being Exhibit ‘E’ which shows that by the said document Durgapur Steels Limited wanted to refund the amount to the plaintiff together with post-dated cheque dated 9th May, 2011 for a sum of Rs. 3,00,00,000/-. The witness deposed that the covering letter and the cheque was signed by Mr. Sandip Kumar Kedia and the documents were marked Exhibit ‘E’ collectively. 6. Plaintiff has produced a document dated 13th June, 2011 being a covering letter issued by Durgapur Steels Limited addressed to the plaintiff. Witness deposed that the said letter was given by Durgapur Steels Limited on 13th June, 2011, praying for extension of time with a request that the plaintiff should not present the cheque for a sum of Rs. 3,00,00,000/-. The witness further deposed that the original of the said letter was found from the office record. The document has been marked Exhibit ‘F’. The witness also produced a document being a letter dated 18th July, 2011 issued by the defendant addressed to the plaintiff. 3,00,00,000/-. The witness further deposed that the original of the said letter was found from the office record. The document has been marked Exhibit ‘F’. The witness also produced a document being a letter dated 18th July, 2011 issued by the defendant addressed to the plaintiff. The said document was sent to the plaintiff confirming that they were not in a position to arrange the fund and requested for further time. The witness identified the signature of the author of the document to be Mr. Sandip Kumar Kedia and he deposed that the said letter was found in the office record. The document has been marked Exhibit ‘G’. The witness has produced a document being 15th June, 2014, issued by the plaintiff, addressed to the defendant. The witness deposed that the said letter was signed by Mr. T.R Narayanan on behalf of the plaintiff being its Director and the same was received by the defendant. The said document is marked Exhibit ‘H’. By Exhibit ‘H’ the plaintiff agreed to refund the money. The defendant was also requested to confirm the balance in their account. The witness has placed the original document being a letter dated 30th June, 2014 issued by the defendant Durgapur Steels Limited addressing it to the plaintiff Con-cast Is pat Limited. The document is tendered and marked Exhibit ‘H’. By this document, the defendant again confirmed that a sum of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- was received by them from the plaintiff as an advance for supply of materials and the defendant further confirmed that the aforesaid sum was due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff as on 31st March, 2014. The defendant, however, by the said document, agreed and confirmed that the said sum would be paid by 31st December, 2014. The document is tendered and marked Exhibit ‘I’. The plaintiff produced another document being dated 19th June, 2017 (Exhibit ‘J’) being a letter written by a learned Advocate on behalf of the plaintiff addressing it to the defendant demanding payment of a sum of Rs. 7,14,09,863.00/-. The witness deposed that this letter was given to the defendant claiming refund of money. He has also identified the postal receipt by which the said letter was sent to the addressee-defendant. The witness also identified the A.D Card being part of Exhibit ‘J’ collectively confirming that Durgapur Steels Limited received the letter dated 19th June, 2017 (Exhibit ‘J’). 7. The witness deposed that this letter was given to the defendant claiming refund of money. He has also identified the postal receipt by which the said letter was sent to the addressee-defendant. The witness also identified the A.D Card being part of Exhibit ‘J’ collectively confirming that Durgapur Steels Limited received the letter dated 19th June, 2017 (Exhibit ‘J’). 7. From the unchallenged testimony of the plaintiff and the Exhibits and other materials available on record it is evident that the plaintiff's claim as made through the notice of demand being Exhibit ‘J’ is justified. Plaintiff has also been able to prove the claim which is the content in the notice on demand dated 19th June, 2017 (Exhibit ‘J’ collectively). Therefore, the claim in the plaint that the plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crore) only, towards principal sum and the transaction being of commercial nature, the interest @ 12% per annum for a total of Rs. 2,75,60,000/- (Rupees Two Crore Seventy Five Lakh Sixty Thousand) only, for the period from 15.10.2009 to 19.06.2017 would be justified. The plaintiff is entitled to a total claim for a sum of Rs. 5,75,60,000/- (Rupees Five Crore Seventy Five Lakh Sixty Thousand) only. The plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to a decree for the said sum. 8. Suit is, accordingly, decreed for the aforesaid sum. 9. So far the interim interest and interest upon judgment, the materials available on record does not reflect that there was any agreement between the parties that for any transaction, if any, interest is chargeable, then the same will be paid @ 18% per annum. Therefore, in exercise of its discretion this Court allows interest @ 9% per annum in favour of the plaintiff as an interest on judgment for the period after the decree is passed. Therefore, the defendant is allowed to satisfy the decree for the aforesaid sum within a period of three months from the date of service of a copy of the decree upon the defendant, failing which the defendant shall be liable to pay interest @9% per annum on the decretal amount till realization thereof by the plaintiff. 10. Department is directed to draw up and complete the decree as expeditiously as possible. 11. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be delivered to the learned counsel for the parties, upon compliance of all usual formalities.