Vinod Kumar Arora, Proprietor M/s. Satish Electricals Store, 95/147, Gupta Colony, Transport Nagar, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh2500002. ....Defendant Date of institution : 02.03.2022 Date of arguments : 22.11.2023 Date of judgment : 22.11.2023 SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs. 33,03,749/ ALONGWITH FUTURE AND PENDENTELITE INTEREST. JUDGMENT: 1. Vide this judgment, I am deciding the suit for recovery of Rs. 33,03,749/ alongwith pendentelite and future interest @ 24% per annum filed by the plaintiff against the defendant. 2. The essential facts for disposal of present suit as per plaint are as that the plaintiff is a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013. Earlier the plaintiff was operating its business from its office at Vishnu Garden, New Delhi and now plaintiff is operating its office from Plot no. F50 CS (Comm.) No. 178/2022 1 51, PocketF, Sector 5, Bawana Industrial Area, New Delhi 110039. Shri Piyush Gupta is authorized representative of the plaintiff and Sh. Piyush Gupta is competent and authorized to file the present suit. The plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of various types of electric switches, LED lights/ panels and other Electrical products. The plaintiff now commands high reputation and goodwill among its customers and also among its suppliers. It is mentioned that defendant has represented himself to be the proprietor and person incharge of affairs of the firm M/s. Satish Electricals Store and had approached the plaintiff for the purchase of the goods. The defendant had visited the office of the plaintiff at Vishnu Garden, New Delhi for the purpose of negotiations and placing of orders to the plaintiff. Acting upon the requests and representations of the defendant, plaintiff had sold goods to the defendant vide various invoices. The defendant had been maintaining a running account with the plaintiff company. IGST at the applicable rate in accordance with procedures and norms had been charged and deposited by the plaintiff and the said firms with competent authorities (GST Department) and that Eway bill as per GST rules had also been issued by the plaintiff. The plaintiff had sold goods to the defendant vide following invoices: S.No. Date Invoice No. Amount (Rs.) 01 17/10/2019 D/2225Y201920 4,750.00 02 23/10/2019 D/2345Y201920 240.00 03 24/10/2019 D/2363Y201920 1,35,766.00 04 04/11/2019 D/2447Y201920 1,83,112.00 05 05/11/2019 D/2465Y201920 1,59,006.00 06 06/11/2019 D/2474Y201920 1,08,940.00 CS (Comm.) No. 178/2022 2 07 09/11/2019 D/2504Y201920 57,033.00 08 15/11/2019 D/2569Y201920 1,14,413.00 09 16/11/2019 D/2582Y201920 2,96,981.00 10 19/11/2019 D/2613Y201920 2,15,495.00 11 21/11/2019 D/2642Y201920 3,09,568.00 12 21/11/2019 D/2645Y201920 1,02,188.00 13 23/11/2019 D/2678Y201920 23,948.00 14 25/11/2019 D/2685Y201920 74,084.00 15 25/11/2019 D/2695Y201920 35,422.00 16 27/11/2019 D/2718Y201920 52,750.00 17 02/12/2019 D/2756Y201920 32,331.00 18 06/12/2019 D/2826Y201920 45,752.00 19 09/12/2019 D/2846Y201920 1,04,625.00 20 10/12/2019 D/2863Y201920 2,00,100.00 21 10/12/2019 D/2868Y201920 81,937.00 22 13/12/2019 D/2898Y201920 22,468.00 23 21/12/2019 D/2986Y201920 1,72,620.00 24 21/12/2019 D/2991Y201920 81,711.00 25 21/12/2019 D/2992Y201920 3,08,528.00 26 23/12/2019 D/2999Y201920 1,15,394.00 27 24/12/2019 D/3008Y201920 1,16,053.00 28 24/12/2019 D/3009Y201920 16,652.00 29 08/01/2020 D/3178Y201920 19,913.00 30 15/01/2020 D/3255Y201920 84,765.00 31 16/01/2020 D/3261Y201920 27,234.00 Total 33,03,749.00 The defendant had been maintaining a running account with the pl