1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. SUIT NO.1800 OF 2005 National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. ..Plaintiff. Vs. Rajendra A. Bagga ..Defendant. .... Ms. Purvi Doctor i/b M/s. Manilal Kher Ambalal & Co. for the Plaintiff. None for the Defendant. .... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. 14th March, 2008. P.C. : 1. The name of the Plaintiff has been changed to NOCIL Limited by a fresh certificate of incorporation issued on 14th September, 2007 by the Registrar of Companies A draft amendment has been tendered to carry out this formal amendment. The amendment is allowed in terms of the draft tendered and taken on record and marked as ‘X’. Amendment to be carried out within four weeks from today. 2. The suit has been instituted for the recovery of an amount of Rs.50,01,393/- on account of goods sold, supplied and 2 delivered. The Plaintiff carries on business in chemicals, plastics and polymer products. The Defendant was a non-exclusive consignment agent of the Plaintiff for several years and the appointment was renewed periodically. An agreement was entered into lastly on 15th December, 2000 for and on behalf of the Plaintiff. Under the agreement, several products listed therein were to be sold by the Defendant to customers in the State of Maharashtra and the Union Territory of Daman. It has been averred that pursuant to the agreement, stocks of goods were transferred from the factory or warehouse of the Plaintiff to the Defendant under stock transfer invoices. The Defendant would sell goods on behalf of the Plaintiff to customers and forward copies of the consignment sales invoices to the Plaintiff. Thereupon the Plaintiff would raise debit notes and debit the running account of the Defendant. For payments received from the Defendant towards consignment sales, credit would be given to the Defendant in the account maintained by the Plaintiff. As the agent, the Defendant was responsible for collection and realization of sale proceeds. During the period May 2002 and June 2002 the Defendant sold, by 3 consignment sales the Plaintiff’s products to customers and accordingly the Plaintiff raised ten debit notes aggregating to Rs.34,95,757/-, the details whereof are furnished in paragraph 6 of the plaint. After the adjustment of the credit due to the Defendant in respect of the debit notes, an amount of Rs.31,84,960/- is owed by the Defendant to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has included a claim towards interest in the amount of Rs.18,16,433/- as on 25th April, 2005 at the rate of 20% per annum. 3. By a letter dated 23rd April, 2002 the Defendant expressly desired to finally settle the account. Several letters were addressed by the Plaintiff inter alia on 30th October, 2002, 11th April, 2003 and 18th September, 2003 calling for the outstanding payments. A copy of the statement of accounts was forwarded to the Defendant. Despite an advocate’s notice dated 30th August, 2004 followed by another notice dated 29th January, 2005, payment has not been effected by the Defendant. 4. The Defendant has been served with the writ of 4 summons. Upon failure of the Defendant to enter an appearance, the suit has been listed as an undefended suit for an ex parte decree. An affidavit of service has been filed. The claim of the Plaintiff falls within the purview of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and is within limitation. The Plaintiff has relied upon the examination-in-chief of its witness Shri S.R. Deo who is holding the office of Senior Vice President, Manufacturing and Technology. A compilation of the original documents has been filed. The witness has deposed to the material averments contained in the Plaint. In the absence of any contest by the Defendant, the case of the Plaintiff has remained to be rebutted. The suit shall accordingly stand decreed in the amount of Rs.31,84,960/- upon which the Plaintiff will be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the respective due dates of the invoices until the date of the suit and at the same rate from the date of the suit until payment or realization. The Plaintiff would be entitled to the costs of the suit. *****