TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 561X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e on the pages 43 and 44 of the court file showing the balance due from the respondent to the petitioner to be Rs. 41,47,187. This ledger has been specifically mentioned, since it is the contention raised on behalf of the respondent that the interest component has not been reflected in the ledger. This is not disputed. This was pointed out in order to buttress the argument that the claim of interest at the rate of 25 per cent per annum was unilaterally raised. There is also a photocopy of the ledger for the period 1-4-2000 to 31-12-2000 in which the balance due is shown as Rs. 35,21,428. It has been explained by learned counsel for the petitioner that this amount has been calculated after first adjusting the payments made towards interest, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntained in the bills of the petitioner received by the respondent from time to time. It is contended that bills do not constitute an agreement between the parties. In this context, reliance has been placed on a decision of a Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court in Kitply Industries Ltd. v. Hari Narain Sons (P.) Ltd. [2001] 3 Comp. LJ. 406, and to a Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka in Jyothi Ltd. v. Boving Fouress Ltd. [2001] 33 SCL 736 . As to the general principle that a bill or invoice would not per se constitute an agreement for payments of interest, I am in respectful agreement with these judgments. The distinguishing feature between the facts of those two cases and the present one is in the case at hand e.g. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es for this amount having been furnished to the petitioner. In respect of the sum of Rs. 46,93,000, the controversy as to whether the petitioner legally permitted to adjust payments received by it firstly towards interest, and thereafter, towards principal does not arise. This arises only if the claim of the petitioner, viz., Rs. 35,21,428 as contained in the petition, comes up for consideration. 6. In these circumstances, there is no manner of doubt that the amount which is presently due from the respondent-company to the petitioner is Rs. 46,93,000, less the payments received after 31-3-1998. It has been clarified in paragraphs of the aforementioned supplementary affidavit that out of the aforementioned amount of Rs. 46,93,000 - t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
