Jain Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs J.B. Oil And Vegetable Products ...
2006 Latest Caselaw 2120 Del

JUDGMENT

A.K. Sikri, J.

1. The plaintiff, which is a private limited company, by means of this suit filed under Order xxxvII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeks recovery of Rs. 82,96,683.25 p. from the defendants. It is averred that the plaintiff is engaged, inter alia, in the business of import and export of various goods as well as sale and purchase of such goods. In the first week of June 1983, the plaintiff placed on one M/s. N.W. Harvey of London a large quantity of industrial de-gummed soya-bean oil (non-edible) [for short, 'the consignment'). This consignment was loaded on the vessel 'S.S. Sterling Beauty' at the port of Lisbon to be delivered to the plaintiff at the port of Calcutta. While this consignment was still on high seas, the defendant No. 1 approached the plaintiff through its brokers M/s. B.K. Brothers for purchase of 500 MTs of the aforesaid material from the said consignment representing that defendant No. 1 was the actual user of the said product. A contract was, accordingly, entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 in or about second week of July 1983 whereby the plaintiff agreed to sell 500 MTs of the said consignment to the defendant No. 1. The plaintiff addressed letter dated 14.7.1983 to the defendant No. 1 confirming having sold the said material on high sea sale basis on the terms and conditions set out in the said letter. Copy of this letter was sent to M/s. B.K. Brothers, brokers of the defendant No. 1. According to the plaintiff, with this letter a concluded contract between the parties was entered into. The price contracted was Rs. 12,600/- per MT i.e. Rs. 63,00,000/- for 500 MTs. This price was inclusive of stevedoring charges, duty, clearing and forwarding charges, railway freight etc. in addition to the cost of the material. The invoice price of the said material was Rs. 9,000/- per MT and the balance price of Rs. 3,600/- per MT was towards payment of other charges. The defendants also vide two letters dated 20.7.1983 confirmed having purchased 250 MTs each of the said material, vide bill of lading No. 24 and 25 dated 11.6.1983. Likewise, plaintiff had also written two letters dated 20.7.1983 addressed to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Calcutta, declaring therein that they had sold a total of 500 MTs of industrial de-gummed soya-bean oil to the defendant No. 1 on a high sea sale basis and further that the plaintiff had been appointed the clearing agency by the defendant No. 1 to complete all the necessary formalities with regard to clearance of the said consignment. As far as appointment of the plaintiff as clearing agent is concerned, it was on the basis of request made by the defendant No. 1 vide its letter dated 20.7.1983 for the reason that the defendants did not have any arrangement for the clearing of the goods at Calcutta.

2. The defendants also executed two letters of indemnity/guarantee dated 30.7.1983 thereby guaranteeing to pay the plaintiff immediately on demand the full amount of, inter alia, sales-tax penalties and other expenses incurred by the plaintiff. They also waived all rights to contest the amount which may be demanded by the plaintiff. The defendant No. 1 paid an advance of Rs. 12,50,000/- to the plaintiff vide five demand drafts, all dated 6.8.1983, in terms of the said contract, out of Rs. 45,00,000/-, to be paid for the aforesaid material (500 MTs x Rs. 9,000/-).

3. The said consignment duly arrived at Calcutta port on 11.8.1983. However, dispute arose as to the legality of the release of the said consignment by the Customs authorities. The plaintiff had to initiate legal proceedings for which, according to the plaintiff, it incurred an expenditure of Rs. 37,142/- which is to be reimbursed by the defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff is that it also incurred an expenditure of Rs. 1,20,482.25 p. towards customs duty and Rs. 32,500/- towards clearance of the said consignment. It has also spent Rs. 9,63,858/- for service and handling charges. Storage charges amounting to Rs. 1,20,000/- were also paid to M/s. Hindustan Oil Storage and Distribution Company from June 1983 to December 1983. Thereafter, the plaintiff commenced dispatch of the material on 1.9.1983 in small consignments by road, charges whereof were pre-paid by the defendant No. 1. The last consignment was dispatched on 17.12.1983. According to the plaintiff, apart from the payment of Rs. 12,50,000/- no further payment was made and thus following amounts are due:

  Particulars                               Cost of material
                                         (500 MT x Rs. 9000)
                                          Amount (in Rs. )

Service and handling charges     :         45,00,000.00

Storage charges                  :          9,63,858.00

Legal expenses                   :          1,20,000.00

Customs Duty                     :             37142

Clearing charges                 :          1,20,482.25
                                              32,500.00

                 Total           :         57,73,982.25

(-) Amount already paid          :          12,50,000.00
               
                Balance          :          45,23,982.25
 

4. Towards payment of the aforesaid amount, the defendant No. 1 issued following cheques drawn on the Bank of Maharashtra in favor of the plaintiff:
  Cheque No.     Date        Amount (in Rs. )
-----------------------------------------------
541141       25.11.83       3,60,000.00
541142       30.11.83       3,25,000.00
541144       11.12.83       2,50,000.00
541145       12.12.83       6,35,000.00
541146       13.12.83       4,50,000.00
541147       15.12.83       3,70,000.00
541148       16.12.83       2,65,000.00
541149       17.12.83       5,35,000.00
541150       20.12.83       2,65,000.00
541151       30.12.83       1,30,000.00
541152       31.12.83       8,35,000.00
541143       02.01.84         91,600.00
----------------------------------------
                  Total    45,11,600.00
 

5. First five cheques which were presented by the plaintiff to its bankers for a total of Rs. 20,20,000/- were returned dishonoured with the remarks 'Referred to drawer' and 'Funds expected please present again'. The plaintiff by a telegram dated 20.12.1983 informed the defendant about the dishonour of the aforesaid cheques and stated that unless the payment was made the plaintiff would be constrained to initiate legal proceedings. In response to the said telegram, defendant No. 5, a partner of defendant No. 1 firm, arrived at Delhi to request the plaintiff to withhold presentation of the remaining seven cheques. It was followed by eight demand drafts for a total sum of Rs. 9,30,000/- which were received by the plaintiff and encashed. After adjusting this amount, balance payment due was reduced to Rs. 35,93,982.25 p. However, this payment was not made, though vide letter dated 31.5.1986, the defendants enclosed acknowledgment signed on 16.4.1986 confirming the liability in the sum of Rs. 24,57,982.25p. In this acknowledgment, sum of Rs. 11,21,000/- was not included which was towards service handling charges, storage charges as well as legal expenses incurred by the plaintiff on behalf of defendant No. 1. Therefore, the plaintiff sent debit note dated 12.3.1984 in the sum of Rs. 11,21,000/-. Earlier another debit note dated 30.11.1983 for Rs. 15,000/- was also sent in respect of such charges.

6. Thus, according to the plaintiff, the total amount due is Rs. 35,93,982.25 p. The defendants have even acknowledged liability in the sum of Rs. 24,57,982.25 p., however, the payments are not made. The plaintiff has also, therefore, charged interest @ 24% p.a. calculated from 22.1.1984, when the last Installment of the amount was payable and adding the interest component, total amount claimed is Rs. 82,96,683.25 p.

7. Defendant No. 1 is a partnership firm and defendant Nos. 2 to 8 are also imp leaded as partners of the said firm on the ground that they are jointly and severally liable to make the payment. On the summons for judgment being issued to the defendants, they have filed the following applications for leave to defend:

  Filed by                                 Application No. 

Defendant No. 4                    :     IA No. 2392/1990

Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 7         :     IA No. 2393/1990

Defendant No. 8                    :     IA No. 2434/1990

Defendant No. 6                    :     IA No. 2435/1990

Defendant No. 5                    :     IA No. 2436/1990
 

8. The defense of the defendants, on merits, in all these applications is common and is filed through the same lawyer Mr. R.K. Sanghi, who made his submissions in respect of these applications on behalf of all the defendants. It is, however, pointed out that defendant No. 3 died on 20.9.1989 i.e. immediately after filing of the suit and, therefore, suit against him is abated. It is also pleaded that defendant No. 4 was not a partner of defendant No. 1 firm. The losses suffered by the defendants are as under:

a) money was blocked and the consignment was delayed for more than two months;

b) the goods had a limited life and because of delay and storage of goods in tanks for a period of more than two months;

c) the FFA of the oil increased resulting into increase in the refining losses and poor quality of the oil and consequent heavy losses to the defendants by selling the same at a lower rate;

d) the defendant also suffered heavy losses on account of falling prices of the goods because of delay in delivery.

In terms of the provisions of Order VIII Rule 6 and 6A, the defendants are allowed to claim the set off and counter claim in the written statement only. Hence the defendant in terms of the provisions of Order VIII Rule 6 and 6A (sic). The appropriate stage to quantify and claim the set off and counter claim would be at the time of filing of written statement.

9. Though the defendants have not denied the transaction in question between the parties whereby defendant No. 1 had agreed to purchase 500 MTs. of the goods in question on high sea sale basis @ Rs. 9,000/- per MT, following friable issues are sought to be raised in the applications:

a) the plaintiff is relying on the copy of the alleged contract dated 14.7.1983, original whereof is not filed and only copy is enclosed. As per the defendants, this is a fabricated and forged document as the same is not signed by the defendants. Document has been accepted by M/s. B.K. Brothers, who claimed themselves to be the broker of defendant No. 1, however, no authority has been given by the defendants to the so-called broker. M/s. B.K. Brothers is not a party to the suit and is to receive brokerage from the plaintiff. M/s. B.K. Brothers is a necessary party to the suit and the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties;

b) as per the contract dated 12.7.1983, the price is Rs. 9,000/- per MT, whereas as per the contract dated 14.7.1983, the price is Rs. 12,700/- per MT;

c) when the goods arrived at the Calcutta port, notice was issued under Clause 10(c) of the Import Control Order by the Office of Chief Controller (Import and Export) to the plaintiff. Because of seizure of the goods by the Customs authorities, delivery thereof got delayed and the defendants could not sell the goods at the proper rate. It is mentioned that for clearance of the goods, writ petition was filed in the Calcutta High Court, though vide order dated 5.10.1983, the Calcutta High Court directed that the petitioner (defendant No. 1 herein) would be entitled to remove the goods which were lying at M/s. Hindustan Oil Storage and Distribution Company but at the same time it directed that goods would not be used until further orders;

d) the import itself is illegal and for recovery of the money for the sale of illegal goods, the suit is not maintainable as opposed to public policy, as it was a canalised item and could be imported only through the State Trading Corporation; and

e) the entire claim of the plaintiff in the suit is not covered under the provisions of Order xxxvII of the Code of Civil Procedure. Various amounts included are outside the purview of the contract dated 12.7.1983, including legal expenses, payment claimed towards customs and service charges as well as interest charged @ 24% p.a. The confirmation of Rs. 24,57,982.25 p. was conditional and, therefore, this would not constitute an acknowledgment of debit note for a sum of Rs. 11,21,000/- in the eyes of law, which was otherwise also obtained under misrepresentation and by undue influence. The price of such a consignment is to be decided, under Clause 10(c) of the Import Control Order, by the Government and, therefore, claim made by the plaintiff @ Rs. 12,700/- per MT is uncalled for. The writ petition in the Calcutta High Court and the proceedings before the Joint Chief Controller are still pending and, therefore, suit at this stage is premature and not maintainable. More so, when final verdict of the Calcutta High Court will act as res judicata.

10. It is, thus, pleaded that friable issues arise and defendants have a good case on merits and, therefore, unconditional leave to defend should be granted. In support of this submission, reliance is placed on the following judgments:

i) Sunil Enterprises v. SBI Commercial

ii) Raj Duggal v. Ramesh Kumar Bansal

iii) Skylark Motors India and Ors. v. Lakshmi Commercial Bank Ltd.

iv) Cycle Corporation of India Ltd. v. Biswanath Dhandhania and Ors.

v) Goyal Tax Feb Pvt. Ltd. v. Anil Kapoor

vi) Jashbhai Motibhai Patel v. Hasmukhbhai Rajivbhai Patel

11. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Before I point out the issues involved, it would be appropriate to first mention the admitted facts as that would help in understanding the issues at which parties are at variance.

12.There is no doubt about the import of the material in question. It is also not in dispute that while the said material imported by the plaintiff was on high seas, the defendant No. 1 agreed to pay the sum and contract was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 for sale of 500 MTs of the said consignment to the defendant No. 1. Price at which the material was to be sold is Rs. 45,00,000/-. It was at the rate of Rs. 9000/- per MT. According to the plaintiff, sum of Rs. 3,600/- per MT was for payment of other charges and there may be some dispute on this, but that may not be of much consequence as we shall proceed on the basis that the contract price for the material was Rs. 9,000/- per MT. It is because of the reason that insofar as the payment of other charges are concerned, ultimately in the suit the plaintiff has not included the claim @ Rs. 3,600/- per MT, the charges allegedly actually paid. Thus, the cost of the material was Rs. 45,00,000/- (Rs.9000 x 500 MTs). The defendant had earlier paid a sum of Rs. 12,50,000/-. At the time of clearing the consignment which duly arrived at Calcutta on 11.8.1983, dispute arose with the Customs Authorities, which aspect shall be adverted to at a later stage. Accordingly to the plaintiff, the consignment was ultimately cleared after spending some amount on account of customs duty, clearance, service and handling charges, storage, etc. as well as legal expenses for going to court for getting the consignment cleared. The goods were, thereafter, dispatched in small consignments to the defendant No. 1 and the defendant No. 1 received those goods. It is also not in dispute that the defendant No. 1 issued 12 cheques for a total amount of Rs. 45,11,600/-, particulars whereof are mentioned in para 4 above. When the first five cheques for a total sum of Rs. 20,20,000/- were presented for payment, the same were returned dishonoured. The defendant No. 1 thereafter gave 8 demand drafts for a total sum of Rs. 9,30,000/-. Vide letter dated 31.5.1986, the defendants enclosed acknowledgment signed on 16.4.1986 confirming the liability in the sum of Rs. 24,57,982.25 p. This acknowledgment reads as under:

D/- 31st May, 1986.

To, M/s. Jain Exports Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.

Dear Sirs, This is to certify that as on 30-6-85 the credit balance of Rs. 24,57,982-

25 was in the a/c. of M/s. Jain Export Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. The Statement of A/c. is enclosed herewith.

Thanking you, Yours faithfully for J.B. Oil and Vegetable Products Sd/-

Partner (Sharadkumar Agrawal)

Thus, against the material of Rs. 45,00,000/-, the defendant No. 1 had earlier paid Rs. 12,50,000/- and thereafter Rs. 9,30,000/- by eight demand drafts. If this payment is adjusted, the balance towards the material comes to Rs. 23,20,000/-. The defendant No. 1 has acknowledged the liability of Rs. 24,57,982.25p. The plaintiff states that the balance due is Rs. 35,93,982.25p. Difference is on account of other charges claimed by the plaintiff, namely, customs duty, clearance, service and handling charges, storage, etc. as well as legal expenses. It seems that the defendant No. 1 has included customs duty of Rs. 1,20,482.25p. which they presumably agreed to pay and there is addition of Rs. 17,500/- more. Though it is not discernible as to on which account the defendant No. 1 has agreed to pay this amount while confirming the debit balance, fact remains that on an earlier occasion the defendant No. 1 had agreed to pay almost all other charges and for this reason the cheques issued by them were for a total sum of Rs. 45,11,600/-. Even if it is presumed that some dispute arose afterwards on the said charges, it is clear from the acknowledgment that insofar as price of the material is concerned, as well as the customs duty, the defendants had agreed to pay the sum inasmuch as not only a sum of Rs. 9,30,000/- was paid after the cheques were dishonoured, but acknowledgment signed on 16.4.1986 confirming the liability of Rs. 24,57,982.25p. was given.

13. In this backdrop of the admitted position, let us examine the disputes raised now in the applications for leave to defend. The averments that money was blocked and consignment was delayed for a period of two months; the goods have limited life and because of delay and storage of goods in tanks for a period of more than two months; the FFA of the oil increased resulting into increase in the refining losses and poor quality; and that the defendant suffered heavy losses on account of falling prices of the goods, are clearly an afterthought. As would be clear from the sequence of events narrated above, when the goods arrived at Calcutta Port on 11.8.1983, the customs authorities refused to clear the same. The plaintiff had to initiate legal proceedings and ultimately the Calcutta High Court passed the order for release of these goods. This process consumed some time. However, the fact remains that even thereafter, when the goods were dispatched to the defendants, the defendants did not protest or refuse to take the delivery thereof. Not only the defendants accepted the goods, they even issued cheques, though the same were dishonoured. Even thereafter, when the amount of cheques was demanded, the defendants made part payment of Rs. 9,30,000/- and acknowledged the liability of the remaining amount without taking any plea of suffering of loss due to delayed delivery. Such a defense is clearly an afterthought and sham defense just to make semblance of a dispute and the defendants cannot be permitted to raise this plea.

14. The defendants have taken the plea that copy of the alleged contract dated 14.7.1983, original whereof is not produced, is a fabricated and forged document as the same is not signed by the defendants. It is pleaded that the same is accepted by M/s. B.K. Brothers, alleged brokers of the defendant No. 1, but no authority was given by the defendants to the so-called brokers. However, nothing would turn on this plea inasmuch as it is not in dispute that the defendants agreed to purchase 500 MTs @ Rs. 9,000/- per MT and even accepted the delivery and agreed to make payment at the aforesaid rate, as stated in detail above. Plea that as per the contract dated 12.7.1983, the price is Rs. 9,000/- per MT whereas the contract dated 14.7.1983 mentions the price of Rs. 12,700/- per MT would also not cut much ice. Though it is explained by the plaintiff that price of goods was Rs. 9,000/- per MT and Rs. 3,700/- was towards other charges, in any case, as mentioned above, we have proceeded on the basis that price of the material was agreed to be Rs. 9,000/- per MT and the plaintiffs have in their claims included actual expenditure incurred on other charges.

15. The main argument which was repeatedly stressed by Mr.R.K. Sanghi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants, was that import was illegal and thus opposed to public policy and, therefore, suit for recovery on the basis of the said material was not maintainable. Import is dubbed as illegal on the ground that it was a canalised item and could be imported only through STC. However, this argument would not be of any help to the defendants. The customs authorities, no doubt, refused to clear the consignment on this ground. However, when the writ petition was filed in the Calcutta High Court, the Calcutta High Court vide its order dated 5.10.1983 permitted the clearance of the said consignment. It was pointed out by learned Counsel for the plaintiff, and rightly so, that the import of such material was not per se illegal but goods could be redeemed with fine. At this stage, one may refer to the order dated 22.9.1983 passed by the Collector of Customs, Calcutta, who adjudicated upon the aforesaid import. It may be mentioned that total quantity imported by the plaintiff was 8000 MTs for a value of Rs. 2,74,36,548/- out of which 500 MTs were sold to the defendant No. 1. After examining the validity of this import, the Collector of Customs passed a detailed order dated 22.9.1983. This order, inter alia, records that the plaintiff has produced 17 licenses to cover a total value of Rs. 2,22,63,120/- and sought clearance of the goods. In addition to these licenses, they had also requested for adjustment of the face value of the licenses against non-debit facility in terms of para 174(v) of the Import Policy period A.M. 1981. Para 10 of the order mentions that three issues arising in the said cases were to be decided, which are as under:

10. The issues for decision are i) whether the transferred licenses would be eligible for importing the OGL items as it existed at the time of registration of the contract; ii) whether the Soyabean Oil Industrial Grade is a canalised item or OGL item during 1979-80 and 1980-81 Policy periods and iii) whether the transferred licenses would also get the benefit of the non-debitable facility granted under the Policies.

The first question was answered in favor of the plaintiff. Even the second question was answered in favor of the plaintiff specifically giving the following findings - 'In the light of the above specific order of the Government, there is considerable force in the contention of the Importers and it had to be conceded that the industrial grade soyabean oil would not be covered by the canalisation during the policy period A.M. 1980 and A.M. 1981.' As regards the third question, the finding was particularly in favor of the plaintiff and only in respect of 7 licenses the Collector of Customs found that the request for utilisation of non-debitable facility in respect of those 7 liceces could be acceded to. On the basis of these findings, the concluding para would show that the following order was passed:

The total value of the goods is Rs. 2,74,36,548/- and the licenses produced which the Importer requires to be debited (numbering 14) comes to Rs. 1,77,79,187/-. The gap which has to be covered by the non debitable facility is Rs. 99,44,996/-. In the light of my finding in Para 13 above, the goods to the extent of Rs. 99,44,996/- are not covered by the licenses and hence become liable for confiscation. Accordingly, the impugned goods are confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, read with Section 3(2) of the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947, as amended. However, considering the fact that the offences mainly hinges on the interpretation of the Policy and is more of a technical violation, I am inclined to take a lenient view and allow the goods to be redeemed on payment of a fine of Rs. 9,00,000/- (Rupees nine lakhs only). The option should be exercised within 15 days from the date of this order.

16. Thus, only in respect of 7 licenses which covered goods to the extent of Rs. 99,44,996/- out of Rs. 2,74,36,548/-, it was found that goods were covered by the licenses. However, even in respect of this import fine of Rs. 9,00,000/- was imposed and the goods were allowed to be cleared. Thus, when the Collector of Customs has allowed the clearance of the goods, the argument that the import was illegal and against public policy also fails. For the same reason, submission of the defendants that the price of the consignment is to be decided under Clause 10(c) of the Import Control Order by the Government alone and that the plaintiff cannot make the claim @ Rs. 12,700/- per MT would be meritless. Clause 10(c) of the Import Control Order reads as under:

Power to make directive for sale of the imported goods -

(1) Where, on the importation of any goods or at any time thereafter the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports is satisfied, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the licensee of being heard in the matter, that such goods cannot be or should not be utilized for the purpose for which they were imported he may by order, or direct the importer of the goods (in case goods were imported under OGL or Special General license) or the Licensee or any other person having possession or control of such goods, to sell such goods within such time at such price and in such manner as may be specified in the directions.

(2) licensees or the person to whom any direction has been made under Sub clause (i) shall be bound to comply with such direction.

17. Since the Collector of Customs authorised the clearance of the goods, the goods could be sold by the plaintiff to actual user as per the agreed price and the price agreed between the parties was Rs. 9,000/- per MT plus other charges.

18. Insofar as filing of the writ petition in the Calcutta High Court is concerned, what has to be noted is that the petition was filed with the defendant No. 1 as the petitioner though it was prosecuted by the plaintiff. It was for obvious reason that the defendant No. 1 had become the owner of the goods which were sold to it on high sea sale basis. This act of the defendant No. 1 in getting the petition filed in its name in the High Court of Calcutta would also indicate that the defendants had accepted that they had purchased the goods and had become the owner thereof. It was mentioned by learned Counsel for the plaintiff that the said petition had since been decided, though the order was not produced. In any case, that would have no bearing in view of the order dated 22.9.1983 passed by the Collector of Customs.

19. Even if there is a dispute about other charges, the acknowledgment signed on 16.4.1986 by the defendant No. 1 would show that there was no dispute about the price of the goods which was Rs. 45,00,000/- and the defendants also agreed to pay the customs duty and other charges to the tune of Rs. 1,52,982.25p. This acknowledgment coupled with the fact that the defendants had issued cheques also, which got dishonoured, in respect of claim to the extent of Rs. 24,57,982.25p, it is clear that the claim up to this amount is covered under the provisions of Order xxxvII CPC. I am fortified in my opinion in view of the judgment of this Court in Dura Line India Ltd. v. BPL Broadband Network , wherein this Court held as under:

The suit is based on a written contract comprising the offer, its acceptance by issuance of purchase orders and raising of invoices in execution thereof. These constitute the written contract. Additionally, reliance has been placed on the acknowledgment and confirmation of balance issued by the defendant. The mere averment in the plaint that the plaintiff also maintains a running account, reflecting the price of the goods supplied and the payments made therefore, does not change the nature of the suit as in one being based on a running account. The mere maintenance of a running account does not disentitle the plaintiff from filing the suit under Order xxxvII CPC based on a written contract and acknowledgment in writing.

20. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the view that no friable issues arise and the defense of the defendants is clearly moonshine and sham. Therefore, various judgments quoted by learned Counsel for the defendants would not come to his aid insofar as the present suit is concerned. The defendants are not entitled to leave to defend this suit. Since the defendant No. 4 has died, suit qua him has abated. The applications are accordingly dismissed, except pointing out that suit under Order xxxvII CPC would be covered to the extent of Rs. 24,57,982.25p.

21. CS (OS) No. 1845/1989 As a result of the aforesaid discussion and the observations, suit of the plaintiff is decreed to the extent of Rs. 24,57,982.25p. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to interest @ 9 % p.a. with effect from the date of acknowledgment till the payment is made. Further, the plaintiff shall also be entitled to proportionate costs.

22. Suit is decreed in the aforesaid terms. Decree be prepared accordingly.