Full Text
JUDGMENT
CENTRAL GOVT. EMPLOYEES CONSUMER COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. ..... Appellant
For the Appellant : Mr Apurva Upmanyu and Ms Aparna
Vishal, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Mr Vikas Sharma, Mr Samir Mudgil, Ms
Aakanksha Sahni, Ms Komal Sharma and Ms Aishwary, Advocates.
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
1. The appellant – Central Government Employees Consumer Cooperative Society Limited, popularly known as Kendriya Bhandar (hereafter alternatively referred to as the appellant or the appellant society) – has filed the present appeal being aggrieved by the common judgement of the learned Commercial Court dated 08.07.2023 (hereafter the impugned judgement) whereby CS (COMM) No.
2. The appellant has filed the present appeal assailing the impugned judgment to the extent that the learned Commercial Court has dismissed the appellant’s suit [CS(COMM) 934/2022].
FACTUAL CONTEXT
3. The appellant society is a Cooperative Society registered under the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 and is a welfare organisation of the Central Government selling grocery, consumer and household items at fair prices with stores in states across India. The respondent is an ex-serviceman and had served in the Indian Air Force. After his retirement, he opened a franchise outlet of Kendriya Bhandar at Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi (hereafter the retail outlet or the shop). The parties along with Veterans India, a trust registered under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 acting as the facilitator, entered into an agreement – the Tripartite Agreement dated 07.02.2018 (hereafter the Agreement) – whereby the respondent (franchisee) set up the retail outlet, and was responsible to manage and operate the same at his cost. The appellant had agreed to supply the goods for sale at the retail outlet. The respondent also deposited a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) of INR 5,00,000/- bearing number 21767528 dated 13.02.2018 issued by ICICI Bank Ltd., with the appellant as security, in terms of the Agreement.
4. In terms of the Agreement, the respondent (franchisee) was bound to sell the goods at the selling price fixed by the appellant society RAWAL with a profit margin of 3% to 4% on the full value of supplies. As stated in Clause (iv) of the Agreement, the franchisee was to submit payment by issuing a fifteen days advance post-dated cheque for the full value of supplies to be made and the stock was to be transferred to the franchisee (respondent) on a fifteen days credit. The relevant clause, Clause (iv) of the Agreement, is reproduced below: “iv) the stocks will be supplied against firm demand and on production of advance post dated cheque (15 days) for the full value of supplies to he made, KB will take profit margin of 3-4% and the stocks will be transferred to Franchisee against 15 days credit. However, post dated cheque has to accompany the firm demand.”
5. The appellant claims that it entered into the Agreement for allotment of a retail outlet to the respondent on a recommendation for developing its business by ex-servicemen. It acknowledged that it had received a Fixed Deposit Receipt of a sum of ₹5,00,000/- (FDR bearing number 21767528 dated 13.02.2018 issued by ICICI Bank Ltd.) as security in terms of the Agreement. The appellant claims that it had, during the course of its dealings, supplied goods to the respondent of a value of ₹45,54,986/- during the period 11.05.2018 to July 2019. Against the aforesaid supplies, the appellant claims that it had received an aggregate sum of ₹23,05,874/-. Thus, it was entitled to the balance amount.
6. Against the aforesaid amount, the appellant adjusted the amount of the security deposit of ₹5,00,000/-, a sum of ₹2,50,000/- on account of furniture returned by the respondent; and ₹1,84,058/- as credit for the RAWAL value of the goods returned. The appellant claims that a sum of ₹13,15,054/- was outstanding and payable by the respondent. It also claimed interest on the said amount at the rate of 18% per annum for the period May, 2019 to February, 2022. Accordingly, the appellant sought a decree for a sum of ₹19,36,100/- along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
7. The appellant instituted its claim on the premise that the respondent had failed to make payments by issuing fifteen days postdated cheque for the full value of the goods, as per Clause (iv) of the Agreement in advance. It is submitted that, although, goods were supplied to the respondent in perfect condition and without defects from May, 2018 to March, 2019, the respondent defaulted in complying with their obligations under the Agreement by not issuing the post-dated cheques.
8. The appellant claims that it issued several letters including letters dated 02.09.2019, 10.10.2019 and 01.08.2019 and a legal notice dated 22.03.2021 [Ex.PW1/J] calling upon the respondent to pay the amounts due. However, the respondent failed to make the said payment.
9. The respondent filed a written statement. He denied that total amount of ₹19,36,100/- was recoverable. He claimed that the value of “furniture, goods, computer, thermal printer etc.”, which was recovered by the appellant was ₹9,70,000/-. The amount of ₹4,34,058/- [₹2,50,000/- plus ₹1,84,058/-] adjusted by the appellant was much less than the actual amount.
10. The respondent also filed a written statement and a counter claim [Counter Claim No.47/2022].
11. The respondent made a counter claim of ₹34,97,000/-. The respondent claimed that it had incurred expenditure of an amount of ₹65,000/- on renovation of the property (retail outlet); ₹65,000/- on electric work; ₹4,85,000/- on furniture; ₹89,000/- on computers and printers; ₹30,000/- on software and instalment charges; ₹22,500/- on internet charges; ₹3,000/- on instalment of router; ₹6,12,000/- as rent for the shop/site; ₹4,40,000/- approximately on futher rent for the shop/site; ₹1,50,000/- as salary of the cashier; ₹90,000/- on the salary of helper; ₹22,500/- on a salary of night guard; ₹22,500/- on salary of relearning staff; ₹1,74,000/- on account of electricity bill. Thus, the respondent claimed an aggregate amount of ₹22,70,500/- on account of the aforementioned expenditure. In addition, the respondent also claimed interest on the said amounts for a period of three years, at the rate of 18% per annum. The respondent sought recovery of an aggregate amount of ₹34,97,000/- along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT
12. The appellant examined the Manager of the Franchisee Cell of the appellant society as PW-1. The respondent examined three witnesses including himself as DW-1, Mr Shashwat Kumar stated to be the caretaker/manager of the franchisee retail outlet (DW-2) and Mr Divya Abhishek stated to be a regular customer of the shop (DW-3). RAWAL The witnesses also relied upon various documents in support of their contentions.
13. The learned Commercial Court framed the following issues in the Suit [CS(Comm) no. 934/2022]: “i) Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for want of cause of action? OPD ii) Whether the Plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts? OPD iii) Whether the Plaintiff has supplied inferior quality and deficient goods to the Defendant, as claimed? OPD iv) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.19,36,100/- from the Defendant, as prayed? OPP v) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover any interest from the Defendant? If so, at what rate and for which period? OPP vi) Relief.”
14. The learned Commercial Court framed the following issues in the Counter Claim [Claim No.47/2022]: “i) Whether the counter claim has been filed without any cause of action and is liable to be dismissed on this score? OPD ii) Whether the counter claim is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPP iii) Whether the counter claimant/petitioner is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.34,97,000/- from the Respondent? RAWAL iv) Whether the counter claimant/petitioner is entitled to recover any interest from the Respondent? If so, at what rate? OPP v) Relief.”
15. The learned Commercial Court rejected the contention that the appellant had approached the court with unclean hands. The learned Commercial Court also found that both the Suit and Counter Claim could not be held to be without any cause of action. The challenge to the Counter Claim based on non-joinder of the direct supplier of goods to the respondent was also rejected with the finding that it did not have any bearing on the recovery proceedings initiated against the appellant.
16. The learned Commercial Court rejected the claim that goods of inferior quality and deficient in quantity were supplied to the respondent. The learned Commercial Court rejected the Counter Claim of the respondent as the Court found that there was insufficient evidence relied upon by the respondent to substantiate its claims. The respondent relied upon the testimonies of DW-2 (claiming to be the manager/ caretaker of the retail outlet) and DW-3 (claiming to be a regular customer of the retail outlet), and the documents relied upon by them.
17. The learned Commercial Court found that although DW-2 relied upon Ex. DW-2/1 and Ex. DW-2/4 (being emails dated 08.05.2018 and 13.08.2018 respectively) to show it had raised complaints of shortage of goods being supplied to the respondent, the said emails were general in nature and did not specify the details of the goods that were in short supply in reference to the shipments. It was also found that the emails RAWAL were not duly supported by the requisite certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and were inadmissible in evidence in light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer & Ors.: (2014) 10 SCC 473 and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors.: (2020) 7 SCC 1. The learned Commercial Court also found that no declaration was filed by the respondent in terms of the provisions of Order XI Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereafter the CPC) as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The documents (being Ex. DW-2/1 and Ex. DW-2/4) were found to be mere printouts of emails that were brought on record for the first time at the stage of recording of evidence and were not filed along with the Written Statement or the Counter Claim filed by the respondent. The learned Commercial Court found that the respondent had failed to file the said documents at the appropriate stage, even though they were in his power, possession, control or custody. Accordingly, the documents were not admitted in evidence.
18. The learned Commercial Court further found that the testimony of DW-3 could not be relied upon as it was not supported by the details of purchases allegedly made by him being a regular customer at the shop, including the dates on which he made such purchases or any receipts showing the purchases. The Court found that the respondent had not discharged his burden to prove that goods of inferior quality or insufficient quantities, were supplied. Such allegations were not supported by cogent evidence.
19. The learned Commercial Court found that the Counter Claims raised were not supported by any documentary evidence to show the expenses as claimed. The learned Commercial Court referred to the statement by DW-2 in his cross examination deposing that there was no agreement between the parties, which required the appellant to pay for the electrical works, computer and other infrastructure for which the Counter Claim is raised. The claim for reimbursement of the electricity cost of INR 1,74,000/- was also found to be unsupported by any electricity bill. The claim on account of alleged expenses incurred by the respondent amounting to INR 22,70,500/-, was rejected.
20. The claim raised by the appellant in the suit for the goods supplied for the period of May 2019 to February 2022 for a sum of INR 13,15,054/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, being a total sum of INR 19,36,100/-, was also rejected. The claim was raised by deducting the sum of INR 23,05,874/- received from the respondent, encashment of the FDR deposited as security having value of INR 5,00,000/-, amount towards return of furniture and return of inferior goods. The Court held that the appellant had failed to bring on record any statement of account showing balance payments due from the appellant or the value of the goods/furniture which was adjusted from the amount claimed by the appellant. The Court held that the appellant had failed to substantiate its claim to show that it was entitled to recover the sum of INR 19,36,100/-. Claims for interest claimed in the Suit and the Counter Claim, were rejected as well.
RAWAL REASONS AND CONCLUSION
21. It is material to note that the respondent has not appealed the impugned judgment. Thus, the controversy in the present appeal is confined to the decision of the learned Commercial Court rejecting the appellant’s claim.
22. The plaintiff’s claim rested on the fact that it had supplied goods to the respondent of a value of ₹45,54,986/- and against the aforesaid amount had received an aggregate amount of ₹23,05,874/-. Thus, according to the appellant, it was entitled to the balance sum of ₹22,49,112/-, which it claimed on account of goods supplied.
23. The appellant had adjusted the security deposit of ₹5,00,000/from the amount due for supply of goods. In addition, the appellant also adjusted an amount of ₹2,50,000/- on account of furniture lying at the outlet and ₹1,84,058/- on account of inferior goods returned by the respondent. Thus, the appellant claimed a net amount of ₹13,15,054/-.
24. In order to establish its claim, the appellant established the value of the goods supplied by it. In Paragraph 7 of its plaint, it had set out the value of the supplies made month-wise and the amounts received against the said supplies. Paragraph 7 of the plaint is relevant and is set out below:- “7. That the Plaintiff Society supplied Grocery and other consumer items to the Defendant as giving below: RAWAL S.No. Month & year Total amount of item supplied
1. 11.05.2018 to 31.05.2018 Rs.5,39,593.62
2. June, 2018 Rs.8,50,730.05
3. July, 2018 Rs.8,55,874/-
4. August, 2018 Rs.6,64,919/-
5. September, Rs.6,98,863.48
6. October, 2018 Rs.1,48,769/-
7. November, Rs.3,75,698/-
8. December, Rs.2,10,827/-
9. January, 2019 Rs.47,400/-
10. February, 2019 Rs. 68,664.64/-
11. March, 2019 Rs.8,187.07
12. May, 2019 Rs.50,514/-
13. July, 2019 Rs.34,942.84 Grand total Rs.45,54,986/- (Rupees Forty five Lackh Fifty four thousand nine hundred eighty six RAWAL The Schedule of payments received by the plaintiff from the Defendant is as under:- S.No. Month and year Total amount of payment received
1. June, 2018 Rs.3,00,000/-
2. July, 2018 Rs.4,00,000/-
3. September, 2018 Rs.4,00,000/-
4. October, 2018 Rs.4,55,874/-
5. November, 2018 Rs.4,00,000/-
6. February, 2019 Rs.2,50,000/-
7. May, 2019 Rs.1,00,000/- 23,05,874/- During the month of August, 2019 22,49,112 less Rs.5,00,000/- as FDR of Rs.5,00,000/- as security and the same was encashed in August, 2019, less returned furniture Rs.2,50,000/-, returned inferior goods Rs.1,84,058/- total recoverable amount of Rs.13,15,054/plus interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. May, 2019 to February, 2022 ah interest 18% per annum w.e.f. May, 2019 to February, 2022 is Rs.19,36,100/- (Rupees nineteen Lakhs Thirty six thousand one hundred only).”
25. There was no clear denial by the respondent, of the appellant’s averment regarding the value of the goods supplied by it. In fact, contents of Paragraph 7 of the plaint were partly admitted. The respondent’s response to Paragraph 7 of the plaint as articulated in Paragraph 7 of its written statement, is relevant and is set out below: RAWAL
26. It is clear from the above that the respondent had not agreed to the value of the adjustment made by the appellant. He had claimed the value of the furniture, fixture and computers, which was taken over by the appellant was ₹9,70,000/-. According to the respondent, the adjustment of ₹4,34,058/- (₹2,50,000/- on account of furniture and ₹1,84,058/- on account of goods returned) was less than the actual amount, which he claimed was about ₹9,70,000/-. The respondent did not clearly deny that he had received the goods of the value as claimed by the appellant. Thus, insofar as the appellant’s claim is concerned, the controversy was limited to whether the value of the future and the RAWAL goods returned was ₹9,70,000/-, as claimed by the respondent, or ₹4,34,058/-, as adjusted by the appellant. The assertion that the appellant had supplied goods of aggregate value of ₹45,54,986/- and against the same had received a sum of ₹23,05,874/-, remained uncontroverted.
27. As stated above, the respondent had also made counter claims, which were largely in the nature of damages suffered by it on account of short supplies and inferior supplies of the goods. This counter claim as noted above, was rejected by the learned Commercial Court and is not a subject matter of controversy in this appeal.
28. In view of the above, we are unable to accept that the appellant’s claim for the value of the goods could be rejected. As noted above, the controversy in regard to the appellant’s claim is limited to whether a sum of ₹9,70,000/- was required to be adjusted on account of furniture and goods returned instead of ₹4,34,058/-. The difference in the two is ₹5,35,942/- and the controversy fell in this narrow compass.
29. Thus, even if the respondent’s case is accepted and the said amount is adjusted against the amount of ₹13,15,054/- claimed by the appellant, the appellant’s claim to the extent of ₹7,79,112/- (without interest) was required to be accepted.
30. We also find that the appellant had produced sufficient evidence to establish the value of the goods. It is also relevant to note that in Paragraph 8 of its plaint, the appellant had set out details of the goods RAWAL and items supplied to the respondent and the respondent had admitted the same. Paragraph 8 of the plaint is set out below:
RAWAL 08.06.2018 Rs.2,77,166/- Consumer items 11.06.2018 Rs.28,075/- Consumer 11.06.2018 Rs.81,819/- Consumer 11.06.2018 Rs.12,180/- Consumer 16.06.2018 Rs.23,539/- Grocery & consumer 19.06.2018 Rs.35,674/- Consumer 23.06.2018 Rs.61,089/- Atta 23.06.2018 Rs.21,001/- Consumer 26.06.2018 Rs.13,078/- Consumer 02.07.2018 Rs.58,287/- Grocery 03.07.2018 Rs.90,418/- Cold drink 03.07.2018 Rs.12,061/- Grocery 03.07.2018 Rs.24,652/- Grocery 03.07.2018 Rs.29,191/- Consumer 6.07.2018 Rs.26,039/- Consumer 6.7.2018 Rs.16,257/- Grocery 06.07.2018 Rs.34,401/- Consumer 09.7.2018 Rs.1126/- Grocery 09.07.2018 Rs.3512/- Grocery 09.07.2018 Rs.19148/- Consumer 11.7.2018 Rs.11912/- Consumer 11.7.2018 Rs.1174/- Grocery 13.07.2018 Rs.1,30,619/- Grocery 14.07.2018 Rs.91,344/- Consumer 19.07.2018 Rs.6,290/- Cold drinks RAWAL 19.07.2018 Rs.7505/- Consumer 20.07.2018 Rs.6876/- Consumer 20.07.2018 Rs.8725/- Consumer 21.07.2018 Rs.36,437/- Grocery 23.07.2018 Rs.30,844/- Atta 28.07.2018 Rs.10,227/- Grocery 28.07.2018 Rs.12,204/- Grocery & consumer 28.07.2018 Rs.21,015/- Consumer 28.07.2018 Rs.45,678/- Grocery 28.07.2018 Rs.32,455/- Grocery 28.07.2018 Rs.18,971/- Consumer 28.07.2018 Rs.16,959/- Consumer 30.07.2018 Rs.58013/- Grocery 30.07.2018 Rs.42,363/- Grocery 30.07.2018 Rs.5,953/- Consumer 30.07.2018 Rs.26066/- Consumer 31.07.2018 Rs.47,548/- Consumer 04.08.2018 Rs.1,17,703/- Grocery 06.08.2018 Rs.17,066/- Grocery 07.08.2018 Rs.11,411/- Consumer 07.08.2018 Rs.18,315/- Consumer 07.08.2018 Rs.19,095/- Grocery 07.08.2018 Rs.12,244/- Grocery 07.08.2018 Rs.1056/- Grocery 08.08.2018 Rs.19,981/- Grocery RAWAL 08.08.2018 Rs.17,068/- Grocery 8.08.2018 Rs.99,077/- Grocery 09.8.2018 Rs.10,882/- Consumer 09.08.2018 Rs.33,931/- Consumer 09.08.2018 Rs.1237/- Consumer 17.08.2018 Rs.15,179/- Grocery 17.08.2018 Rs.1201/- Grocery 17.08.2018 Rs.20,475/- Consumer 19.08.2018 Rs.40,289/- Grocery 23.08.2018 Rs.8,766/- Grocery 23.08.2018 Rs.20110/- Consumer 24.08.2018 Rs.42,061/- Consumer 27.08.2018 Rs.45,406/- Consumer 27.08.2018 Rs.14,536/- Consumer & Grocery 28.08.2018 Rs.27,684/- Consumer 28.08.2018 Rs.7292/- Grocery 29.08.2018 Rs.10,488/- Consumer 29.08.2018 Rs.56187/- Atta 29.08.2018 Rs.61,175/- Consumer 30.08.2018 Rs.45,026/- Atta 03.08.2018 Rs.40,027/- Grocery & consumer 04.09.2018 Rs.22,640/- Consumer and Grocery 06.09.2018 Rs.78819/- Consumer RAWAL 06.09.2018 Rs.19240/- Consumer 06.08.2018 Rs.27,137/- Grocery 11.08.2018 Rs.39026/- Consumer 11.08.2019 Rs.23,190/- Consumer 12.09.2018 Rs.1,05,784/- Grocery 17.09.2018 Rs.13,029/- Consumer 19.09.2018 Rs.4471/- Consumer 21.09.2018 Rs.3132/- Consumer 21.09.2018 Rs.1142/- Consumer 25.08.2018 Rs.2925/- Consumer 25.09.2018 Rs.3377/- Consumer 26.09.2018 Rs.5234/- Grocery 26.09.2018 Rs.28091/- Consumer 26.09.2018 Rs.50091/- Consumer 26.09.2018 Rs.16088/- Grocery 26.09.2018 Rs.58904/- Consumer 27.08.2018 Rs.22825/- Atta 27.09.2018 Rs.22663/- Atta 28.08.2018 Rs.10,402/- Grocery 06.10.2018 Rs.3167/- Grocery 09.10.2018 Rs.9808/- Consumer 09.10.2018 Rs.11933/- Grocery 09.10.2018 Rs.8878/- Consumer 15.10.2018 Rs.20,906/- Grocery 24.10.2018 Rs.23238/- Atta RAWAL 24.10.2018 Rs.23138/- Atta 30.10.2018 Rs.18033/- Grocery 30.10.2018 Rs.9568/- Grocery 31.10.2018 Rs.20100/- Grocery 01.11.2018 Rs.8,693/- Consumer 01.11.2018 Rs.20048/- Consumer 12.11.2018 Rs.27575/- Grocery 15.11.2018 Rs.25111/- Grocery 19.11.2018 Rs.25726/- Consumer 20.11.2018 Rs.23828/- Consumer 20.11.2018 Rs.24337/- Grocery 22.11.2018 Rs.34855/- Atta 26.11.2018 Rs.96087/- Grocery 26.11.2018 Rs.27791/- Consumer 28.11.2018 Rs.3646/- Consumer 28.11.2018 Rs.34800/- Grocery 28.11.2018 Rs.23200/- Atta 12.12.2018 Rs.41591/- Grocery & consumer 13.12.2018 Rs.937/- Consumer 13.12.2018 Rs.3063/- Grocery 21.12.2018 Rs.23863/- Consumer 27.12.2018 Rs.7880/- Grocery 28.12.2018 Rs.74993/- Grocery 31.12.2018 Rs.35100/- Atta 31.12.2018 Rs/23400/- Atta RAWAL 28.1.2019 Rs.47400/- Atta 16.02.2019 Rs.6563/- Grocery 16.02.2018 Rs.3237/- Grocery 23.02.2019 Rs.35165/- Grocery 23.02.2019 Rs.23700/- Atta 14.03.2019 Rs.8189/- Consumer 17.05.2019 Rs.7150/- Grocery 17.05.2019 Rs.33842/- Grocery 17.05.2018 Rs.9522/- Grocery 02.07.2019 Rs.34943/- Consumer”
31. In its written statement, the respondent had unambiguously stated that “the contents of para no.8 of the plaint are admitted”.
32. Notwithstanding the above, the appellant had produced copies of invoices raised by it [Ex.PW1/F (Colly)]. It is also material to note that Clause (xiii) of the Agreement also clearly provided that the goods sold would not be taken back except items of Kendriya Bhandar Brand. Clause (xiii) of the Agreement is set out below: “(xiii) Items once sold by KendriyaBhandar will not be taken back under any circumstances except KendriyaBhandar brand items which may be returned atleast 30 days before expiry subject to the condition that franchisee will have to take items of same value from KendriyaBhandar in exchange.”
33. Once the appellant had established that it had supplied goods of a value of ₹45,54,986/-, the onus to prove that the respondent had discharged its liability for payment of consideration against the RAWAL aforesaid supplies rested on him. As noted above, the written statement does not indicate that the respondent had disputed that he had paid a sum of ₹23,05,874/- against the supplies received. It is not the respondent’s case that he had paid a larger sum to the appellant against the supplies made by the appellant. Thus, insofar as the appellant’s claims are concerned, the only controversy that the learned Commercial Court was required to address was whether the adjustment of ₹4,34,058/- was correct or that the adjustment was required to be higher at ₹9,70,000/-, as claimed by the respondent.
34. The appellant has not led any evidence as to how it had valued the furniture at ₹2,50,000/-. It has also not produced any documentary evidence to establish that the value of goods returned was ₹1,84,058/-. However, the onus to prove the value of furniture that was taken over by the appellant and the value of the goods, which were returned, rested on the respondent. Since the respondent did not agree to the value of adjustment put forth by the appellant, he was required to prove that the value of furniture and goods was not ₹4,34,058/- but ₹9,70,000/-.
35. In view of the above, we are unable to accept that the appellant’s claim for value of the goods supplied was required to be rejected on the ground that it had not produced the Statement of Account. As noted above, it had established that the value of the goods supplied during the period May 2018 to July 2019 was ₹45,54,986/-. The same was also admitted. It had set out the amount received from the respondent. The respondent has neither claimed nor established that he had paid a higher RAWAL amount. The respondent has also failed to prove that he was entitled to higher adjustments on account of value of furniture or goods returned.
36. In view of the above, we find that the appellant is entitled to a sum of ₹13,15,054/- as claimed by it. Insofar as the pre-suit interest is concerned, the appellant had issued a legal notice dated 22.03.2021 [Ex.PW1/J] claiming an amount of ₹13,15,054/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. However, the appellant had led no evidence to establish that he was entitled to interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The Agreement between the parties also did not provide for the rate of interest to be paid beyond the credit period.
37. Having stated the above, we are of the view that since the disputes between the parties are commercial disputes, the appellant would be entitled to reasonable interest. We, accordingly, hold that the appellant would be entitled to interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of issuance of the legal notice dated 22.03.2021 on the sum of ₹13,15,054/- till the date of realization.
38. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Let a decree sheet be drawn up.
39. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J SACHIN DATTA, J SEPTEMBER 26, 2024 RAWAL