JUDGMENT : SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. 1. The plaintiff is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office situated at No. 6. Lyons Range, 6th Floor, Kolkata 700-001. The plaintiff company is, inter-alia, engaged in the business of mining and extraction of minerals, import, export and deal in mineral, ores and products. Whereas, on the other hand, defendant is carrying on business as a sole proprietor under the name of M/s. Shyam Enterprises having its office at No. 473, 8th Block, Near Devimaidan, K.B. Road, Yellapur 581-359, Karnataka and also at No. 104, 1st Floor, Cross Road, Avenue Arlem Road, Fatroda, Margao 400-602, Goa. The defendant is, interalia, engaged in the business of mining of Iron Ore. 2. It is alleged by the plaintiff that on 22nd October, 2010 the defendant approached the plaintiff Company and offered to supply iron ore fines. Pursuant to the negotiations held between the plaintiff company and the defendant it was decided that the plaintiff company will buy an aggregate supply of 92,000 Metric Tonnes (MT) of iron ore fines at rates varying between Rs. 1,575/- to Rs. 2,800/- Per Metric Tonnes (PMT) between the period 9th November, 2010 to 5th February, 2011. The said agreement was finalized at the plaintiff's registered office. 3. The plaintiff company claims to have made an advance payment of Rs. 15,66,50,000/- on various dates via RTGS and Fund Transfer according to the terms of the agreement, which was duly received by the defendant. After receiving such payment, the defendant supplied Iron Ore fines worth Rs. 5,84,10,000/-before January, 2012. Thereafter, the defendant did not supply the Iron Ore fines worth Rs. 8,82,40,000/-. Pursuant to this it was agreed between the plaintiff company and the defendant that the balance amount would be refunded as the defendant was unable to supply the said amount of Iron Ore fines. 4. The plaintiff company claims to have requested the defendant on several occasions for the release of the outstanding amount due to the plaintiff company. Moreover, the plaintiff company claims that the defendant has admitted the bonafide claim of the plaintiff company and on 13th November, 2011 via E-mail sent by the defendant offering the plaintiff company to settle the claim by paying Rs. 4,20,00,000/- initially by January, 2012. Moreover, the plaintiff company claims that the defendant has admitted the bonafide claim of the plaintiff company and on 13th November, 2011 via E-mail sent by the defendant offering the plaintiff company to settle the claim by paying Rs. 4,20,00,000/- initially by January, 2012. Pursuant to the demand made by the plaintiff company the defendant on 1st September, 2011 had handed over a cheque of Rs. 4,20,00,000/- to the plaintiff company which was eventually dishonoured upon presentation on 24th February, 2012 for the reasons 'funds insufficient/exceeds arrangement'. Furthermore, the plaintiff company issued a notice to the defendant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 through its advocate on 12th March, 2012 upon dishonour of the said cheque drawn in favour of the plaintiff company. 5. Thereafter, through an e-mail on 5th October, 2012 the defendant company extended its desire to pay the amount of Rs. 5,50,00,000/- after adjusting Rs. 1,00,00,000/- due to the plaintiff company. Hence, various opportunities were provided to the defendant by the plaintiff company to pay the outstanding amount due to the plaintiff company, failing which the plaintiff company has, thus, instituted this suit against the defendant praying for a decree of Rs. 12,00,06,400/-, which includes the principle outstanding amount due to the plaintiff company and also interest @ 18% p.a. calculated from January, 2012 to December, 2013. The plaintiff company has also prayed for interest pendente lite till the date of realization of the above amount. 6. Furthermore, on 31st August, 2018, Mr. Hareram Singh, Advocate on behalf of the defendant entered appearance. However, the Deputy Registrar on 12th February, 2019 certified that no Written Statement had been filed by the defendant until that date. 7. The sole point for consideration before this Court is whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to get the decree prayed for in the instant suit. 8. Mr. Partha Pratim Aich, the accounts manager/principal officer of the company, has been examined as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff. It appears from the board resolution of a meeting held on 19th March, 2018 that Mr. Partha Pratim Aich has been duly authorised by the plaintiff company to depose before this Court for and on behalf of the plaintiff company with regards to this case. It appears from the board resolution of a meeting held on 19th March, 2018 that Mr. Partha Pratim Aich has been duly authorised by the plaintiff company to depose before this Court for and on behalf of the plaintiff company with regards to this case. The board resolution has been tendered and marked as Exhibit A. It transpires from Exhibit B (collectively) that the plaintiff company placed an order with the defendant for the supply of Iron Ore fines. The witness further deposed that the defendant delivered a part of this order and more than 53,000 Metric Tonnes (MT) of Iron Ore fines was not supplied. Further, the deponent states that the purchase order dated 10th December, 2010 was amended which is marked as Exhibit C. During the course of examination of the witness the deponent states that the defendant through an e-mail sent to the plaintiff company on 13th November, 2011 informed that the defendant will pay a sum of Rs. 4,20,00,000/- by January, 2012. The said copy of e-mail is marked as Exhibit D. Thereafter, the deponent stated that the cheque dated 1st September, 2011 of Rs. 4,20,00,000 drawn in name of plaintiff company got dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The original cheque is marked as Exhibit E. The Bank memo evidencing dishonour of the cheque is marked as Exhibit F. 9. It has been established from the evidence on record that the defendant was to supply 92,000 Metric Tonnes (MT) of Iron Ore fines to the plaintiff company after the advance payment for the same was made. The plaintiff company paid a sum of Rs. 15,66,50,000/- to the defendant in lieu of the agreement with the defendant, but the plaintiff company received Iron Ore fines worth only Rs. 5,84,10,000/-, thus supply of iron ore fines worth Rs. 8,82,40,000/- remained outstanding. The plaintiff company tried to approach the defendant on various occasions demanding the outstanding amount but the defendant never repaid the said amount to the plaintiff company. 10. The defendant through an e-mail dated 13th November, 2011 acknowledged the sum due and also promised to refund an initial amount of Rs. 4,20,00,000/- by January, 2012 to the plaintiff company. The plaintiff company tried to approach the defendant on various occasions demanding the outstanding amount but the defendant never repaid the said amount to the plaintiff company. 10. The defendant through an e-mail dated 13th November, 2011 acknowledged the sum due and also promised to refund an initial amount of Rs. 4,20,00,000/- by January, 2012 to the plaintiff company. When the defendant on various occasion failed to pay the amount due to the plaintiff company, the plaintiff company on 31st March, 2014 through its advocate filed a Civil Suit in this Court with regard to the outstanding claim of the plaintiff. It is to be noted that the suit is well within the period of limitation. It is to be noted that the defendant has entered appearance but chosen not to file any written statement. In view of the same the suit has been treated as an undefended suit. 11. The plaintiff company has prayed for Rs. 12,00,06,400/-, out of which Rs. 8,82,40,000/- is the principal amount and Rs. 3,17,66,400/- is the interest amount (calculated @ 18% p.a. from January, 2012 to December, 2013). In my view, the plaintiff company is entitled to get an ex-parte decree against the defendant for the principal sum of Rs. 8,82,40,000/- along with the interest @ 9% p.a. from 13th November, 2011 till the date of payment. There shall no orders as to costs. The department is directed to draw up the decree expeditiously. Later : Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff submits that the original cheque and the bank memo of the said cheque be returned as the same is required in another proceeding. The same is allowed. The department is directed to hand over the copy of the above documents after the receipt of true photocopy of the same.