1 ss3180-10 vai IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMARY SUIT NO.3180 OF 2010 Credence Logistics Limited ....Plaintiff V/s. Vedanta Aluminium Limited ....Defendants Ms.Alka Jaisinghani with Ms.Sheetal M. Nadkarni and Mr.S.M.Khaire i/b Mr.S.M. Khaire for the Plaintiff. None for the Defendants. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 1ST DECEMBER, 2011. P.C. :- 1. The suit is filed to recover a sum of Rs.45,03,098/- together with interest at 18% p.a. on the principal outstanding sum of Rs. 37,18,285/- from the date of the suit till payment. The plaintiff rendered services to the defendants inter-alia in respect of storage of the defendants’ goods at the yard and loading and barging the defendant’s goods. The plaintiff communicated its offer by an e-mail dated 24.12.2008. After considerable negotiations, the plaintiff offered a composite rate of Rs.280/- per metric ton plus services tax at the rate of 10.3% on actual handling of the goods at the port. Upon acceptance of the offer, the plaintiff rendered services in respect of 2 ss3180-10 38,500 metric tons of the goods viz. bauxite. It was further agreed that for the first fifteen days, no rent would be charged for storage of the goods at the plots made available to the defendants, but that thereafter the defendants would be liable to pay the ground rent at the rate of Rs. 20/- per metric ton per month. 2. Ms.Alka Jaisinghani the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff upon rendering the said services including storing the goods beyond the period of fifteen days, raised its invoices for an aggregate sum of Rs.1,24,84,986/- and a further invoice in the sum of Rs.9,36,299/- towards the ground rent charges. Ms.Alka Jaisinghani stated that the defendants made payment of a sum of Rs.97,02,000/- but failed and neglected to pay the balance. She invited my attention to the correspondence including an e-mails dated 18.6.2009 and 19.6.2009. She rightly contended that the defendants had not disputed its liability. 3. The plaintiff examined one P.P. Valson, its Deputy General Manage – Legal by filing his affidavit in lieu of examination in chief. The witness confirmed the contents of the affidavit. Ms.Alka Jaisinghani through the witness tendered a compilation of original documents, which is taken on record and marked “A” collectively. 4. The defendants were absent. The witness was therefore, not examined. There is nothing on record that militates against the plaintiff’s case especially in view of the defendants having failed to file 3 ss3180-10 the written statement and having remained absent throughout. As rightly submitted by Ms.Alka Jaisinghani, the defendants have not denied their liability. The defendants in fact made a substantial part payment constituting 90% in respect of the first invoice. There is no provision for interest. The plaintiff however claimed interest in the notice dated 25.1.2010 demanding payment. 5. In the circumstances, the suit is decreed in the sum of Rs. 37,18,285/- along with interest at 18% p.a. from 25.1.2010 till the date of filing of the suit and thereafter at the rate of 12% p.a. till payment and/or realization. Costs to be quantified as per rules. Refund, if any, as per rules.