1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 04.08.2009 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN C.S.No.244 of 2007 M/s. Grobest Feeds Corporation India Limited No.38/1, Nowroji Road, Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031 Rep by its authorised Signatory Mr.I.Shanmugasundaram .. Plaintiff vs T.R.Pandian .. Defendant Suit filed under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC read with Order IV Rule 1 of High Court Original Side Rules read with for the relief as prayed hereunder. For Plaintiff : Mr.M.L.Joseph for M/s. Surana & Surana For Defendant : No Appearance J U D G M E N T The plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendant, seeking a money decree for a sum of Rs.35,92,688/- to be paid with 24% interest and costs. 2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff is as follows : The plaintiff is a public limited company carrying on business of production and supply of prawn feeds. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 defendant is a dealer in aqua feeds and is the proprietor of M/s. Meenakshi and Co., a sole trading concern. The defendant approached the plaintiff in the year 2004 for the purchase of prawn feeds and accordingly, the plaintiff supplied prawn feeds on credit basis, under various invoices for the total value of Rs.22,67,975/- as on 30.07.2004. Various cheques drawn on Canara Bank, Mayiladuthurai Branch, issued by the defendant to the plaintiff were dishonoured. The plaintiff has also initiated proceedings against the defendant, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and in support of the contention of the plaintiff has produced certified copies of the documents obtained from the Court of Small Causes, Chennai. 3. According to the plaintiff, on the date of filing of the suit, the amount due and payable to the plaintiff by the defendant was Rs.35,92,688/- and that the defendant has agreed to pay at 24% interest per annum, it being a commercial transaction. 4. The defendant was called absent and set exparte. In support of the claim of the plaintiff, Manager (Admin., & Gen. Affairs) of the plaintiff company was examined as P.W.1 and he has also filed proof affidavit. In support of the case of the plaintiff, Exs.P.1 to P.16 were also marked. 5. It is seen that Ex.P.1 is the certified copy of the authorisation letter given by the plaintiff company to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 P.W.1 to conduct the case, by way of a resolution and Exs.P.2, P.3 and P.4 series are certified copies of invoice-cum-delivery chalan relating to the defendant. Ex.P.5 is a certified copy of the cheque issued by the defendant for a sum of Rs.3,80,428/-, that was dishonoured by the Bank due to insufficient funds. Exs.P.6, P.7, P.8 and P.9 are certified copies of similar cheques issued by the defendant for a sum of Rs.6,08,750/-, Rs.4,50,000/-, Rs.4,47,350/-, Rs.3,11,000/- respectively and Exs.P.10, P.11 and P.12 are the certified copies of the legal notice dated 14.05.2005 issued by the learned counsel for the plaintiff to the defendant. Exs.P.13, P.14 and P.15 are the certified copies of the case tried before the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and the complaint given under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the defendant. Ex.P.16 is the certified copy of the statement of account filed by the plaintiff. 6.Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff and also the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff, in the absence of any contra evidence, I am of the view that the plaintiff has established the suit claim as against the defendant to get a decree as prayed for with costs. 7. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 7. In the result, the suit is decreed as prayed for with costs. sd/.S.T.J 04.08.2009 //Certified to be a true copy// Dated this the day of 2015. R.s/27.04.2015 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/