State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Marriage Cannot Be Perpetuated on Paper When Cohabitation Has Ceased for Decades: Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 to Grant Divorce Despite Wife’s Opposition Ownership of Trucks Does Not Mean Windfall Compensation: Supreme Court Slashes Inflated Motor Accident Award in Absence of Documentary Proof Concealment of Mortgage Is Fraud, Not a Technical Omission: Supreme Court Restores Refund Decree, Slams High Court’s Remand State Reorganization Does Not Automatically Convert Cooperative Societies into Multi-State Entities: Supreme Court Rejects Blanket Interpretation of Section 103 Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication

Commercial Court’s Assessment of Disputed Transactions and Defective Goods Claims Upheld; 18% Interest Justified Under MSMED Act – Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a detailed judgment passed by the High Court of Delhi, the bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju dismissed an appeal filed by Casa 2 Stays Pvt. Ltd., thereby upholding the Commercial Court’s decree which had ordered the appellant to pay ₹8,49,385 with an 18% per annum interest for goods supplied by Comfia Ecom Private Ltd.The legal crux of the judgment revolves around the interpretation and application of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act), particularly concerning the entitlement to pre-suit interest and the verification of claims regarding the supply of defective goods.

The appeal stemmed from a commercial dispute wherein Comfia Ecom alleged non-payment for 2500 T-shirts supplied under an invoice dated June 30, 2018. Casa 2 Stays contested the transactions and claimed the goods were defective. Furthermore, the appellant challenged the computation of 18% pre-suit interest, asserting that Comfia Ecom had not established its status under the MSMED Act nor provided adequate notice regarding the interest penalty.

The court found substantial evidence in the form of ledger entries and email exchanges which confirmed ongoing transactions and outstanding payments specific to the invoice in question.

The court noted that only 22 out of the 2500 T-shirts were disputed regarding quality. There was no evidence of a full return or sufficient denial of receipt, thereby undermining the appellant’s claim of defective goods.

The Commercial Court’s finding on the entitlement to 18% per annum pre-suit interest was upheld. It was determined that the appellant had received adequate notice and that the respondent’s status under the MSMED Act was sufficiently established to warrant such interest.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Commercial Court’s decision which required Casa 2 Stays Pvt. Ltd. To fulfill its financial obligations including the principal amount and accrued interest as per the MSMED Act’s provisions.

Date of Decision: May 13, 2024

Casa 2 Stays Pvt. Ltd. Vs Comfia Ecom Private Ltd.,

Latest Legal News