1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 18.04.2009 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.S.No.561 of 2006 M/s.Glads Home Appliances Private Limited rep.by its Accounts Executive E.K.Sathyanathan .. Plaintiff vs M/s.Ananda Jothi Electronics rep.by its Sole proprietor Mr.Annamalai .. Defendant Suit filed to pass a judgment and decree against the defendant to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.10,81,249/- together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of plaint till realisation and to pay costs of the suit. For Plaintiff : Mr.C.S.K.Sathish For Defendant : No appearance JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2. This is a suit for recovery of money of a sum of Rs.10,81,249/- (Rupees ten lakhs eighty one thousand and two hundred and forty nine only). After service of summons, the learned Advocate for the defendant entered appearance. However, no written statement was filed; whereupon the defendant was set exparte. Before the learned Master, on behalf of the plaintiff one E.K.Sathyanathan, the Accounts Executive of the plaintiff's company was examined as PW1 after he having filed his chief examination affidavit and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. 3. Hence, I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff. 4. The relevant issues to be considered by this Court would run thus: 1. Whether the plaintiff supplied to the defendant consumer home appliances as per contract to the tune of Rs.10,81,249/- (Rupees ten lakhs eighty one thousand and two hundred and forty nine only)? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for? https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 5. The learned counsel for the plaintiff inviting the attention of this Court to the deposition of PW1 including his chief examination affidavit and the documents Exs.P1 to Ex.P6 marked, would advance his argument to the effect that as revealed by Ex.P4, the defendant clearly and categorically admitted his liability to pay a sum of Rs.10,59,708/-; over and above that in response to the plaintiff's lawyer's notice, the defendant in its reply notice Ex.P6 candidly and categorically, pellucidly and palpably admitted that the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-; and however, owing to cash strapped situation, they could not discharge their liability. 6. Hence, in these circumstances, I could see no reason to doubt the genuineness of the case of the plaintiff . 7. Accordingly, issue No.1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff as against the defendant. Issue No.2: 8. In the result, the suit is decreed as prayed for with costs. Inasmuch as the suit transaction is a commercial one, obviously and axiomatically the claim of 18% interest by the plaintiff from the date of plaint, till https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 the date of recovery is tenable, so to say, even after the decree also, the same rate of interest could be awarded for the reason that it is a commercial transaction. Sd/G.R.J 18.04.2009 //Certified to be a true copy// Dated this the day of 2016 R.s/28.01.2016 COURT OFFICER From 25.09.2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Order/Judgment Decree in this format. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/