JUDGMENT : Moushumi Bhattacharya, J. 1. The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant for a decree for a sum of Rs.9,00,68,657.11/- and for a further sum of Rs.2,90,30,573/- on account of unpaid price of goods sold and delivered on high-seas basis pursuant to written agreements executed between the parties and for loss suffered on account of increase in the exchange rate of US dollars, respectively. 2. The plaintiff claims to have acquired repute in countries across the world as a purchaser and distributor of plastic scrap. The plaintiff further claims that the defendant company approached the plaintiff in October 2012 with a proposal to purchase a large consignment of plastic scrap and was keen to enter into an arrangement with the plaintiff for this purpose. The parties agreed to enter into an arrangement whereby the defendant would place orders upon the plaintiff for supply of various quantities of plastic scrap in a phased manner and the plaintiff would import the materials agreed to be sold to the defendant on a high-seas basis. Pursuant to the above, between the periods 3rd May 2013 to 3rd August 2013, a total of 82 agreements were signed and executed between the parties under which the plaintiff was to supply and the defendant was to purchase a total of 5775.218 MT of plastic scrap. 3. In support of the case made out in the plaint, one Vikash Kothari was examined on behalf of the plaintiff. Mr. Kothari is a director of the plaintiff since its inception and is well acquainted with the facts of the case. Photo copies of the relevant agreements have been tendered in evidence as Exhibit A and the contents proved by the plaintiff’s witness. The goods covered by the agreements were duly sold and delivered to the defendant which would be evident from the shipment documents which include Bills of Lading (Exhibit-B). The witness has deposed that all 82 Bills of Lading indicate the plaintiff as the consignor. The witness has also deposed that each of the bills of entry (Exhibit-C) reflect the name of the defendant as the consignee and the name of the foreign exporter of the plaintiff, namely, Vincom Commodities Limited, UK which has been described as the consignor. The witness has deposed that all 82 Bills of Lading indicate the plaintiff as the consignor. The witness has also deposed that each of the bills of entry (Exhibit-C) reflect the name of the defendant as the consignee and the name of the foreign exporter of the plaintiff, namely, Vincom Commodities Limited, UK which has been described as the consignor. As agreed between the parties and for the purposes of the agreement, the plaintiff entered into a contract dated 22nd November 2012 with Vincom, the plaintiff’s foreign supplier for supply of 6,000MT of plastic scrap. Pursuant to the aforesaid, consignments were shipped by Vincom to the plaintiff and were thereafter sold to the defendant on high-seas as per the terms and conditions of the agreements between the plaintiff and the defendant. The 82 bills raised by Vincom upon the plaintiff have been tendered in evidence and marked as Exhibit D and have been duly proved by the plaintiff’s witness. The witness has deposed that the original bills are with the defendant who provided the plaintiff with the Xerox copies of the bills. 4. Upon supplying the goods to the defendant as agreed upon, the plaintiff contemporaneously raised 82 bills upon the defendant for a sum of Rs.18,37,85,211.11/-, copies of which have been tendered in evidence as Exhibit-E. In course of his evidence, the plaintiff’s witness has stated that the original bills are lying in the custody of the defendant and further that the bills were handed over to representatives of the defendant on the understanding that endorsements of receipt would be made on copies of the bills and thereafter made over to the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s witness has further deposed that duly acknowledged received copies of the bills were given to the plaintiff on several occasions, but not on every occasion as have been agreed upon by the parties. 5. Between the 21st June 2013 and 18th November 2013, the defendant made part payments against the bills raised by the plaintiff amounting to Rs.9,37,16,534/-. The plaintiff’s witness has further deposed that duly acknowledged received copies of the bills were given to the plaintiff on several occasions, but not on every occasion as have been agreed upon by the parties. 5. Between the 21st June 2013 and 18th November 2013, the defendant made part payments against the bills raised by the plaintiff amounting to Rs.9,37,16,534/-. The payments made by the defendant in part have been proved through the ledger account maintained by the plaintiff tendered in evidence as Exhibit-F. The witness has deposed that the ledger of the defendant was maintained by the plaintiff from April 2013 to 31st March 2014 and the print out of the statement downloaded from the computer has been signed by the witness as a director of the plaintiff on all the pages of the print out. The bank statement of the plaintiff for the period 1st April 2013 to 22nd December 2013 tendered in evidence as Exhibit-G has also been proved by the plaintiff’s witness. It can be seen from these documents that the last payment made by the defendant for a sum of Rs.13,86,478/- was made on 18th September 2013 in part payment of the total outstanding dues from the defendant to the plaintiff. The witness has deposed that the statement was obtained from the concerned Bank, namely, RBS. 6. After adjusting all the payments made by the defendant during the period mentioned aforesaid a sum of Rs.9,00,68,657.11/- was found to be the amount outstanding by the defendant to the plaintiff under the bills raised by the plaintiff on the defendant for supply of the agreed quantity of plastic scrap. This figure would appear from the ledger statement; Exhibit-F. The price of the amounts due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff have been stated in paragraph 18 of the plaint and is set out below: PARTICULARS Principal Amount as stated in paragraph 9 above Rs.18,37,85,211.11 Less: Payment received as stated in paragraph 12 above Rs.9,37,16,554.00 Amount due Rs.9,00,68,657.11 Add: Interest @ 18% per annum from 18.09.2013 To 20.06.2016 on the above balance sum. Rs.4,46,39,507.00 Add: Additional Loss on account of Hike in Exchange Rate Rs.2,90,30,573.00 Add: Interest @ 18% per annum from 10th May, 2014 To 20th June, 2016 on the additional loss Rs.1,09,66,398.00 Rs.17,47,05,135.11 7. Rs.4,46,39,507.00 Add: Additional Loss on account of Hike in Exchange Rate Rs.2,90,30,573.00 Add: Interest @ 18% per annum from 10th May, 2014 To 20th June, 2016 on the additional loss Rs.1,09,66,398.00 Rs.17,47,05,135.11 7. The basis for claiming interest at 18% as shown above is that each of the bills raised by the plaintiff state that “over-due payment will carry interest at 18% per annum”; Exhibit-E. The plaintiff has made a further claim for a sum of Rs.2,90,30,573/- being the amount payable under a bill dated 10th May 2014 (Exhibit-I), which was raised on account of increase in the exchange rate of US Dollars, namely, the difference between the rate prevailing on the dates when payments were made by the plaintiff to the concerned banks for retirement of documents as opposed to the rates prevailing at the time of shipment of the goods. In support of this claim, the plaintiff has further relied on bank statements/advice confirming payment by the plaintiff at the enhanced exchange rate, which have been tendered in evidence as Exhibit- H. The plaintiff’s witness has explained the basis on which this bill was raised upon the defendant. 8. It should be mentioned at this juncture that the defendant has failed to enter appearance in the suit or filed any written statement. An order dated 13th November 2017 passed by the Hon’ble Justice Sahidullah Munshi records that the writ of summons had been served on the defendant and that a report from the department obtained by the plaintiff showed that no one had entered appearance on behalf of the defendant. Since no report had been furnished with regard to the status of service of summons, the department was directed to furnish a further report as to when service of summons had been effected upon the defendant. The next order dated 20th November 2017 passed by Hon’ble Justice Munshi records that the report of the Deputy Registrar (Court & Judicial) dated 17th November 2017 stated that service of summons had been effected upon the defendant in person and that the defendant had not entered appearance till 17th November 2017. On the basis of the said report, an order was passed directly that the present suit be heard as an undefended suit. Pursuant to a subsequent order dated 2nd May 2018, the plaintiff produced its witness for examination-in-chief and filed the Judges Brief of Documents. 9. On the basis of the said report, an order was passed directly that the present suit be heard as an undefended suit. Pursuant to a subsequent order dated 2nd May 2018, the plaintiff produced its witness for examination-in-chief and filed the Judges Brief of Documents. 9. In view of the above, the statements made in the plaint remain undisputed and the documents uncontroverted. The documents annexed to the plaint which have been marked as Exhibits during the deposition of the plaintiff’s witness and forming part of the Judges Brief of Documents, have all been proved to the satisfaction of this Court. There is also no reason to disbelief the evidence of the plaintiff’s witness with regard to the genuiness of the plaintiff’s claims. It is clear from the materials-on-record that the plaintiff supplied the agreed quantity of the goods in question within the time stipulated under the numerous agreements entered into by and between the parties to the suit. There is no document showing that any complaint was ever made by the defendant in respect of the quantity or quality of the goods purchased and received by it. In any event, the defendant did not deem it necessary to defend the claims made by the plaintiff. 10. Having regard to the documentary proof and the oral testimony of the plaintiff which has not been challenged, the plaintiff has established that it is entitled to the claim as made out in the plaint, that is, Rs.9,00,68,657.11 and Rs.2,90,30,573/- together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum on Rs.9,00,68,657.11 and on Rs.2,90,30,573/-, as pleaded in paragraphs 10 and 13 of the plaint, respectively. 11. In view of the above, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (c) of the plaint. 12. The defendant is directed to pay the decreetal amount within four months from the date of communication of the decree failing which the defendant will pay further interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the entire decreetal amount till realisation. 13. The department is directed to draw up and complete the decree as expeditiously as possible. 14. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be delivered to Counsel for the plaintiff, upon compliance of all the usual formalities.