JUDGMENT : MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J. 1. The instant suit is for a decree for a sum of Rs.32,93,955.93/- on account of unpaid price of Steel Materials sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant pursuant to purchase orders placed on the plaintiff by the defendant. 2. The case made out in the plaint in this; two purchase orders were placed by the defendant upon the plaintiff on 15th December 2015 and 16th December 2015 which were sent by the defendant to the plaintiff by e-mail. The goods covered by the agreements were duly delivered to the defendant in terms of the purchase orders. The goods were in fact collected by the defendant from the site of the plaintiff. Upon effecting supply of the goods, the plaintiff contemporaneously raised bills upon the defendant for an aggregate sum of Rs.35,30,218.00. These original bills are presently lying in the custody of the defendant as the said bills were made over to the defendant along with the goods mentioned in the purchase orders. The defendant made part payments amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/- against the total value of the bills which were made on 15th April 2016 and 29th April 2016. Besides the amount paid by the defendant, a cheque of Rs. 18,00,000/- approximately was deposited by the defendant but was dishonoured and returned by the concerned Bank namely Oriental Bank of Commerce, Burrabazar Branch. The payment of Rs. 18,00,000/- (approx) was for the period 11th April 2016 to 31st May 2016. The respective statements of the Bank on 25th May 2016 shows credit of a sum of Rs.18,67,188/- and another reflecting debit of the same amount with the note "Payment stopped by drawer". The plaintiff claims that after adjustment of the payments made by the defendant, a sum of Rs. 25,30,218/- is due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff under the said bills. The plaintiff has claimed interest @ 24% per annum with effect from 30/21 days after the date of supply till 31st March 2017 which amounts to Rs.7,63,737/-. The claim on account of interest is based on the stipulation contained in each of the bills raised by the plaintiff which provides that "Interest will be charged at the rate of 24% per annum if Bill not paid on presentation". 3. The claim on account of interest is based on the stipulation contained in each of the bills raised by the plaintiff which provides that "Interest will be charged at the rate of 24% per annum if Bill not paid on presentation". 3. The plaintiff initially called upon the defendant to clear the outstanding dues by personally visiting the office of the defendant but was later constrained to issue a legal notice upon the defendant through his advocate-on-record on 12th August 2016. The said notice was sent to the Registered office of the defendant by registered post with acknowledgement due and was received by and/or received on behalf of the defendant on 31st August 2016 as would appear from the acknowledgement due card. 4. In support of the case made out in the plaint, the plaintiff Vinod Kumar Aggarwal, deposed on 8th May 2018 and produced the following documents which have been marked as Exhibits and which are: Exhibit-A: Purchase Orders dated 15th December 2016 and 16th December 2016, placed by defendant upon the plaintiff. Exhibit-B: Tax invoices dated 17th December 2015, 23rd December 2015 and 30th December 2015 along with challans, raised by plaintiff upon defendant collectively marked. Exhibit-B: Three sets of Tax invoices dated 11th January 2016 along with challans, raised by plaintiff upon defendant which is collectively marked as Exhibit-B. Exhibit-C: Bank Statement issued by Bank of Baroda, BurraBazar Branch, Kolkata in relation to the plaintiff's account for the period 15th April 2016 to 4th May 2016. Exhibit-D: Bank Statement issued by Oriental Bank of Commerce, Burra Bazar Branch, Kolkata in relation to the plaintiff's account for the period 1st April 2016 to 31st May 2016. Exhibit-E: Notice dated 12th August 2016, raised by plaintiff through its Advocate upon defendant together with acknowledgement cards (two). 5. In his deposition, the plaintiff/witness identified the purchase orders including the contents therein to show that these constituted the written contracts between the parties and further that the plaintiff supplied goods to the defendant under these written contracts (Ex-A). The plaintiff confirmed that supplies of the goods were made to the defendant by way of the latter collecting the goods from the site of the plaintiff. The plaintiff confirmed that supplies of the goods were made to the defendant by way of the latter collecting the goods from the site of the plaintiff. The Bills and challans raised by the plaintiff on the defendant pursuant to such supplies were identified and proved by the plaintiff who deposed that the delivery of the challans were acknowledged by the defendant in writing. The defendant has signed and acknowledged receipt of the said delivery challans (Ex-B). The plaintiff further deposed that the endorsement appearing on the challans and on the bills would show that the defendant received both and that the original bills and delivery challans were lying with the defendants (Question Nos. 10-19). The plaintiff confirmed that the contents of these documents are true and correct. 6. The plaintiff (witness) further confirmed that the value of the total bills would be around Rs. 35,30,000/- approximately and that the defendant has made two payments of Rs.5 lacs each through RTGS (Question Nos. 20-21). The same would be corroborated by the Bank statement of the plaintiff maintained with Bank of Baroda, Burrabazzar Branch for the period 15th April 2016 to 4th May 2016 (Ex-C). The plaintiff stated that he had obtained this document from the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Burrabazar Branch. The witness has encircled the relevant entries in the Bank statement in red to show the receipt of the two payments (Question Nos. 27-28). The plaintiff also deposed that a cheque of Rs.18 lacs was paid by way of a cheque by the defendant w3hich was presented for encashment. However, the said cheque was dishonoured and returned which would appear from the Bank statement of the plaintiff of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Burrabazar Branch. The plaintiff also proved the relevant entries in respect of the Rs. 18 lacs dated 25th May 2016 and the debit of an equal amount which was encircled by the witness in red ink (Ex-D) and Question Nos. 31-37). The witness then deposed that after adjusting the amount of Rs.10 lacs paid by the defendant, the principal amount outstanding is Rs. 25,30,000/- and that the plaintiff has claimed interest at 24% per annum as provided for in the invoices. 31-37). The witness then deposed that after adjusting the amount of Rs.10 lacs paid by the defendant, the principal amount outstanding is Rs. 25,30,000/- and that the plaintiff has claimed interest at 24% per annum as provided for in the invoices. The plaintiff then deposed that a legal notice was sent to the defendant from the plaintiff's advocate after several requests were made to the defendant for payment of the outstanding dues and that such legal notice was received by the defendant (Ex-E, Question Nos. 40-46). The plaintiff confirmed that despite the aforesaid, no further payment was received from the defendant. 7. I have considered the submissions made by Mr. Sukrit Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff. Having gone through the documents relied upon and the evidence of the plaintiff, this court has no doubt that the plaintiff indeed delivered the agreed quantity of the account specified under the purchase orders issued by the defendant to the plaintiff. There is no document on record from the defendant making any complaint with regard to either the quality of the goods supplied or any violation of the terms of the purchase orders which may have warranted withholding of the amounts due to the plaintiff. The fact that the defendant took delivery of the goods would appear from the delivery challans issued by the plaintiff together with the bills at the time of effecting delivery. The challans show the signature of the defendant/representative and also mention the vehicle numbers in which the goods were taken for delivery, besides other details concerning the delivery. The plaintiff has admitted the receipt of payment of Rs.10 lacs from the defendant as part payment of the total value of the Bills raised amounting to Rs.35,30,218/-. The balance principal amount payable would therefore be Rs.25,30,218/- has also been stated in paragraph 15 of the plaint. The interest claimed at 24% would appear from the Bills raised by the plaintiff, which rate has not been disputed by the defendant at any point of time, even after the defendant took delivery of the goods. The plaintiff has accordingly claimed Rs.32,93,955.93/-. The principal balance amount would also appear from the Notice sent by the plaintiff's lawyer to the defendant on 12th August 2016 which was received by the defendant on 31st August 2016 as would be evident from the acknowledgment card due. The plaintiff has accordingly claimed Rs.32,93,955.93/-. The principal balance amount would also appear from the Notice sent by the plaintiff's lawyer to the defendant on 12th August 2016 which was received by the defendant on 31st August 2016 as would be evident from the acknowledgment card due. In the said notice, interest amounting to Rs.3,59,457.62/- as on 31st July 2016 had been claimed. This amount has increased to Rs.7,63,737.93/- calculated till 31st March 2017. The suit was filed on 24th April 2017. 8. The defendant does not have any defence to the claim of the plaintiff as there is no such document presently on record. The conduct of the defendant would be evident from orders dated 15th January 2018 and 24th January 2018 passed by Hon'ble Justice Sahidullah Munshi which record that the report received from the department on 3rd November 2017 showed that the defendant has not entered appearance in the suit and a subsequent report of the Registrar, Original Side dated 19th January 2018 revealed that despite service of summons, no one has entered appearance on behalf of the defendant. The suit was accordingly listed to be heard as an undefended suit by an order dated 24th January 2018. 9. I have also considered whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The registered office of the defendant is at Balitikuri, Surkimil, Howrah-711113, outside the jurisdiction of this court. However, in view of the clear jural relationship between the parties, the defendant debtor is required to seek the plaintiff creditor at its office within the jurisdiction of this court and make payment of the outstanding dues. Besides, both the purchase orders were received by the plaintiff at its office within the jurisdiction of this court where also the plaintiff accepted the purchase orders. In any event, the plaintiff obtained leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent before filing the plaint in the instant suit. 10. It should be mentioned however, as stated in the plaint that the plaintiff had filed winding up proceedings against the defendant which were transferred to the Company Law Tribunal Kolkata and then to the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata bench where the said proceedings are pending adjudication (as on the date of filing of the suit). 10. It should be mentioned however, as stated in the plaint that the plaintiff had filed winding up proceedings against the defendant which were transferred to the Company Law Tribunal Kolkata and then to the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata bench where the said proceedings are pending adjudication (as on the date of filing of the suit). The plaintiff has however stated that he has been advised to forego the claim in the winding up application and pursue the claim in the instant suit instead. 11. In view of the case made out by the plaintiff and in the absence of any defence of the defendant as would appear from the documents on record, the instant suit is decreed in terms of prayer (a). There shall be a decree for a sum of Rs.32,93,955.93/- which would be inclusive of the interest claimed in paragraph 15 of the plaint. The amount decreed would be subject to any amounts which may have already been realised by the plaintiff. The defendant is directed to pay the decretal amount within a period of three months from the date of communication of the decree to the defendant, failing which the defendant would be liable to pay further interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the entire decretal amount till realization thereof. 12. The department is directed to draw up and complete the decree as expeditiously as possible. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be delivered to the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant, upon compliance of all usual formalities.