Vandana Rolling Mills vs B.G.R. Energy System Limited
2022 Latest Caselaw 5201 Chatt

                                    1

                                                                    NAFR
            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR


                               F.A No.65 of 2018
                           Reserved on 03.08.2022
                          Pronounced on 17.08.2022


Vandana Rolling Mills Through Director, Subhash Agrawal, Son Of Shree
Niranjan Lal Agrawal, Vandana Building, M. G. Road, Raipur, Through Power
Of Attorney Holder Santosh Kumar Dubey, Son Of Late Laxmishankar
Dubey, Aged About 40, R/o Vandana Building District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh                              ---- Appellant
                                 Versus


1. B.G.R. Energy System Limited 443, Anna Salai, Tenampet, Chennai,
   600018, Tamilnadu., District : Chennai, Tamil Nadu
2. Shashikala Raghupathi, Chairman, B. G. R. Energy System Limited, 443,
   Anna Salai, Tenampet, Chennai, 600018, Tamilnadu., District : Chennai,
   Tamil Nadu
3. V. R. Mahadevan, Joint Managing Director, B. G. R. Energy System
   Limited, 443, Anna Salai, Tenampet, Chennai, 600018, Tamilnadu.,
   District : Chennai, Tamil Nadu
4. A. Swaminathan, Joint Managing Director And Chief Executive Officer, B.
   G. R. Energy System Limited, 443, Anna Salai, Tenampet, Chennai,
   600018, Tamilnadu., District : Chennai, Tamil Nadu
5. Swarnmagi Kartik, Director, Corporate Strategy, B. G. R. Energy System
   Limited, 443, Anna Salai, Tenampet, Chennai, 600018, Tamilnadu.,
   District : Chennai, Tamil Nadu
6. S. R. Tagat, Director, B. G. R. Energy System Limited, 443, Anna Salai,
   Tenampet, Chennai, 600018, Tamilnadu., District : Chennai, Tamil Nadu
7. A. A. Bohara, Director, B. G. R. Energy System Limited, 443, Anna Salai,
   Tenampet, Chennai, 600018, Tamilnadu., District : Chennai, Tamil Nadu
8. M. Gopalkrishna, Director, B. G. R. Energy System Limited, 443, Anna
   Salai, Tenampet, Chennai, 600018, Tamilnadu., District : Chennai, Tamil
   Nadu
9. M. S. Sundararajan, Director, B. G. R. Energy System Limited, 443, Anna
   Salai, Tenampet, Chennai, 600018, Tamilnadu., District : Chennai, Tamil
   Nadu
10. Janana Rajshekharan, Director, B. G. R. Energy System Limited, 443,
    Anna Salai, Tenampet, Chennai, 600018, Tamilnadu., District : Chennai,
    Tamil Nadu
11. Hendrich Bohmer, Director, B. G. R. Energy System Limited, 443, Anna
   Salai, Tenampet, Chennai, 600018, Tamilnadu., District : Chennai, Tamil
   Nadu                                                 ----Respondents

For Appellant: Shri Anshul Tiwari appears on behalf of Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocates.

For Respondent: Shri Sunny Agrawal appears on behalf of Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocates.

Division Bench:                     Hon'ble Shri Goutam Bhaduri, J
                                    & Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J
                               C.A.V Judgment


Per Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J

1. The instant First Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree

dated 02.11.2017 passed by the 2 nd Additional District Judge, Raipur, District

Raipur in Civil Suit No.10-B/2016 whereby, the suit for recovery of interest

money to the tune of Rs.41,30,507/- was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Defendants/Respondents No.2 to 5

purchased goods/articles from Plaintiff/Appellant Company on credit on behalf

of Defendant No.1 Company between the period April, 2003 and October,

2013. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties,

the cost of purchased goods/articles was to be paid within a period of 7 days

of delivery of the same. It was agreed that if the said

Defendants/Respondents fail to pay the cost of the purchased goods/articles

within the stipulated period, they will be held liable to pay interest @ 24% per

annum on the principal amount. It was averred that the Defendants/Company

did not pay the cost of purchased goods within the prescribed period of 7 days

and the same was paid after long lapse of time, therefore, the Defendants are

liable to pay interest @ 24% per annum on the principal amount, hence, the

legal notice dated 28.08.2015 was sent to Defendant No.1. In spite of said

notice, the payment of interest amount to the tune of Rs.49,70,525/- was not

paid, therefore, the Civil Suit was filed on 12.01.2016 calculating interest @

18% on the principal amount and thereby, the suit was filed for recovery of

interest amount to the tune of Rs.41,30,507/-.

3. After issuance of notice, the Defendants have appeared in the case but

did not file the written statement, therefore, the opportunity of filing the same

was closed on 27.10.2016 and on 25.11.2016, none appeared for the

Defendants, therefore, the case was proceeded ex parte.

4. The trial Court, after completion of the trial, vide impugned judgment

and decree, dismissed the suit filed by the Plaintiff holding that it has failed to

prove any agreement with the Defendant regarding payment of interest on

principal/purchased amount in case of delayed payment and therefore, the suit

was dismissed.

5. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff/Appellant submits that the impugned

judgment and decreed is illegal, erroneous and contrary to law and the trial

Court has not appreciated the oral and documentary evidence in its proper

perspective. He further submits that in the absence of any contract or

agreement, the Court may award interest at such rate as it thinks fit, therefore,

prays that the impugned judgment and decree may be set aside and the

instant Appeal may be allowed.

6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Respondents supported the

impugned judgment and decree and submits that there was no condition

agreed for payment of interest on delayed payment. He further submits that

there are different payment conditions mentioned in the various purchase

orders but there was no penalty clause in any of the purchase orders,

therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit, which does not call for

any interference.

7. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused

the records with utmost circumspection.

8. Santosh Kumar Dubey (PW-1) has proved Purchase Order, Material

Dispatch Clearance Certificate and Transport Authorization Letter (Articles 1 to

9).

9. The Plaintiff/Appellant has claimed that for the said purchase orders,

payment was to be made within 7 days of the period prescribed in the

purchase order and in case the payment was not made within the stipulated

period, then the Defendants are liable to pay interest @ 24% per annum and

the principal amount was not paid within the stipulated period, therefore, notice

(Ex.P-34) was sent to Defendant No.1 for claiming amount of interest to the

tune of Rs.49,70,525/-. In spite of said notice, payment was not made,

therefore, the suit was filed for claiming interest @ 18% per annum to the tune

of Rs.41,30,507/-.

10. From perusal of the purchase orders-Articles 1 to 9, it is evident that

payment terms have been mentioned. Against "Payment Terms", only in

Article-1, the words "100% against Receipt of Material" have been mentioned.

In purchase orders-Articles 2, 3 & 5, it has been mentioned as "Immediate due

net" and in all other remaining Articles, the words "7 days Credit" have been

mentioned against the said column. It is thus, explicit that in different

purchase orders, the period of payment has been differently stated.

11. It is pertinent here to mention that in all such purchase orders, against

the "Penalty" clause, it is specifically mentioned as "N/a" and the

Plaintiff/Appellant has failed to prove any document, agreement or any such

payment condition which has been strictly adhered by the

Defendants/purchaser.

12. In the mater of Union of India vs. Manraj Enterprises (Civil Appeal

No.6592/2021 decided on 18.11.2021), the Supreme Court has observed in

paragraph-8 as under:-

"8. In the case of Bright Power Projects (India) (P) Ltd. (supra), while considering pari materia clause with clause 16(2) of the GCC, a three Judge Bench of this Court has held that when the parties to the contract agree to the fact that interest would not be awarded on the amount payable to the contractor under the contract, they are bound by their understanding and having once agreed that the contractor would not claim any interest on the amount to be paid under the contract, he could not have claimed interest either before a civil court or before an Arbitral Tribunal........"

13. The trial Court has rightly observed that the Plaintiff/Appellant has

regularly supplied the material even when the first bill was also not paid as per

the terms as alleged, therefore, considering the conduct of the parties, the trial

Court has properly appreciated the evidence available on record and held that

if there was any delay caused in the payments, then the same should have

been condoned by the Plaintiff. Since the Plaintiff/Appellant has filed this suit

for the interest on the payment of original bills, therefore, considering the

evidence available on record, we are of the view that the Plaintiff/Appellant

has failed to prove that for delayed payment, any interest was part of the

contract, hence, the findings arrived at by the trial Court are hereby affirmed

as we do not find any error in the same.

14. In view of above, the instant Appeal, being devoid of any merits, is

accordingly dismissed.

15. The parties shall bear their own costs. Accordingly, decree be drawn.

                           Sd/-                                      Sd/-

                    (Goutam Bhaduri)                       (Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
                       JUDGE                                    JUDGE
Priya