TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e defendants suffered by way of the inferior supplies effected by the plaintiff. The pendency of the proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is no bar to the present suit being heard and decided. The jurisdiction of the two fora are different - The confirmation of account dated August 11, 2018 shows an outstanding amount of ₹ 5,79,58,608/-due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. Application disposed off. - GA No. 2598 of 2019 CS No. 254 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 16-1-2020 - DEBANGSU BASAK, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. Surajit Nath Mitra, Sr. Advocate Mr. S. Ghosh, Advocate Mr. S. Ganguli, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Rajarshi Dutta, Advocate Mr. V.V.V. Sastry, Advocate Mr. T. Bose, Ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of account dated August 11, 2018 is not signed by the parties, the transactions reflected therein are not denied by the parties and that, the same inures to the benefit of the defendant in as much as it gives credit to the amount paid by the defendant subsequent to April, 2018 as well. He points out that, taking the account position as on August 11, 2018, the liability of the defendant stands reduced. Referring to the affidavits filed by the parties, learned senior advocate appearing for the plaintiff submits that, although the defendant seeks to raise an issue of inferior supplies being effected by the plaintiff, the same was not raised contemporaneously. The defendant did not point out contemporaneously the portions of the supplies th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferior quality. He draws the attention of the Court to such letters as also some of the response given by the plaintiff with regard thereto. He points out that, contemporaneously the defendant corresponded with one Mr. Pankaj Sharma of the plaintiff. In the supplementary affidavit sought to be relied upon by the plaintiff, such Mr. Pankaj Sharma claims that he did not write those letters and that, they are forged. He submits that, therefore, the issue of forgery is raised. Till such an issue is decided a judgment on admission should not be passed. The Court is considering an application for judgment on admission. The Division Bench in Scope Vincom Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is of the following view with regard to the parameters that a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t be passed. The letter in support of the issue of inferior quality raised by the defendant contemporaneously is dated March 2, 2017. Such letter, or any letter of the defendant however, does not specify the quantity of the inferior supplies. They do not furnish any particulars as to the alleged inferior supply such as the invoice in which the inferior supply was made. In fact, the affidavit-in-opposition of the defendant and the subsequent affidavits of the defendant, as rightly pointed out on behalf of the plaintiff, do not contain any statement quantifying the nature and extent of the inferior supplies. Subsequent to the letter dated March 2, 2017, the defendant placed diverse orders on the plaintiff and received materials from the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... way of the inferior supplies effected by the plaintiff. Again as noted above neither contemporaneously nor in the affidavits filed by the defendant, did the defendant point out any part or portion of the supplies effected by the plaintiff to be of inferior quality resulting into the loss and damages to the defendant. Therefore, the defence sought to be raised by the plaintiff on such score cannot be accepted. The pendency of the proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is no bar to the present suit being heard and decided. The jurisdiction of the two fora are different. The plaintiff seeks a decree for a sum of ₹ 5,79,58,608/-. The three confirmation of accounts dated April 1, 2016, April 1, 2017 and April 1, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
