(i) It is stated that plaintiff is a partnership firm and engaged in trading and manufacturing of plastic dana. In the month of January 2021, defendant had approached the plaintiff firm for purchasing their products for manufacturing of parts and accessories of motor vehicles. Defendant placed purchase orders on dated 05.01.2021, 31.08.2021, 04.09.2021, 24.09.2021, 06.10.2021, 10.11.2021 and 03.02.2022 for purchasing the plastic dana. (ii) It is stated that plaintiff supplied the aforesaid goods and accordingly raised invoices and defendant made part payment of the goods purchased, however, defendant did not pay the entire outstanding amount despite request. In May 2022, defendant promised to pay the entire outstanding amount by May 2022, thus, believing the assurance of defendant, plaintiff further supplied the goods to the defendant in May 2022, however, defendant failed to pay the outstanding amount. Subsequent thereto, defendant has made some more part payment in May 2022, June 2022, October 2022, November 2022 and February 2023. Since plaintiff is registered with MSME, therefore, CS(Comm)/373/2024 Krishna Plastic Industries Vs. SRG Moulding Page no. 2 of 21 plaintiff is entitled to 18% p.a. interest if payment is not made within 45 days of the invoice. (iii) It is further stated that a sum of Rs.6,75,998/ is outstanding against the defendant w.e.f February 2022 which defendant failed to pay despite several requests, thus, plaintiff served the defendant with a legal notice dated 07.05.2023 demanding the aforesaid outstanding amount, however, defendant did not pay the outstanding amount and sent a reply to the legal notice in which defendant has discussed about issuance of a debit note dated 17.05.2022. Thus, it is submitted that defendant did not pay the outstanding amount despite service of legal notice and thus, plaintiff has sought recovery of the aforesaid amount along with 18% p.a. interest with cost of the suit. DEFENDANT'S CASE 2. Defendant has filed its written statement wherein defendant sought dismissal of the plaintiff's case. Defendant has neither disputed the purchase of the goods through the subject invoices nor they have specifically disputed the statement of account filed by the plaintiff. Defendant has opposed the claim of the plaintiff mainly on the ground that the CS(Comm)/373/2024 Krishna Plastic Industries Vs. SRG Moulding Page no. 3 of 21 plaintiff has supplied the poor quality of goods regarding which a debit note dated 17.05.2022 vide invoice no. SRG/22 23/DN/1 was issued and plaintiff was also informed about the same telephonically as well as through various emails. Defendant requested the plaintiff on several occasions for taking back the aforesaid goods and replacing the same and plaintiff had requested the defendant to issue a debit note qua the said goods and had also assured that they will replace these goods within a short span of time, however, despite assurance plaintiff did not replace the said goods and the said goods are still lying in defendant's godown and same is causing immense loss to the defendant as same is occupying lot of space. It is stated that due to supply of poor quality of goods by the plaintiff, defendant could not deliver the finished goods in time to its customers which caused them irreparable loss