Detailed Description Of Concealment Not Mandatory Under Section 27 Evidence Act: Bombay High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Child Is Not A Pawn To Prove Mother's Adultery: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Husband's DNA Test Petition In Desertion Divorce Case Shareholder Ratification Cannot Cure Fraud Under SEBI's PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Restores Rs. 70 Lakh Penalty on Company When High Court Judges Themselves Disagree on the Answer, Can a Law Graduate Be Penalised for Getting It Wrong? Supreme Court Says No Superficial Burns Don't Mean Silence: Supreme Court Explains Why 80-90% Burn Victim Could Still Make a Valid Dying Declaration Daughter's Eyewitness Account, Dying Declaration Seal Husband's Fate: Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence for Wife-Burning Murder Supreme Court Rejects Rs. 106 Crore Compensation Claim; Directs SECL to Supply Coal to Prakash Industries at 2014 or 2019 Prices for Wrongfully Suspended Period Section 319 CrPC | Trial Court Cannot Conduct Mini Trial While Deciding Application to Summon Additional Accused: Supreme Court Accused Can't Be Left Without Documents To Defend: Calcutta High Court Directs Adjudicating Authority To First Decide Whether Complete 'Relied Upon Documents' Were Served In PMLA Proceedings Husband Who Took Voluntary Retirement at 47 Cannot Escape Maintenance Duty: Delhi High Court Upholds ₹10,000/Month to Wife and Daughter Cannot Claim Monopoly Over a Deity's Name: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Trademark Injunction Against 'Kshetrapal Construction' Eviction Appeal Cannot Require Actual Surrender Of Possession, Symbolic Possession Sufficient: J&K High Court Amendment Introducing Time-Barred Relief And Changing Nature Of Suit Cannot Be Allowed: Karnataka High Court Counter Claim Is An Independent Suit: MP High Court Rules Properties Beyond Territorial Jurisdiction Cannot Be Dragged Into Counter Claim Co-Sharer Cannot Be Bound By Passage Carved Out Without His Consent: Punjab & Haryana High Court Modifies Concurrent Decrees ‘Prima Facie True’ Is Enough to Deny Liberty: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Bail in Babbar Khalsa Terror Conspiracy Case High Court Cannot Quash FIR for Forgery When Handwriting Expert's Report Is Still Awaited: Supreme Court Supreme Court Calls for Paternity Leave Law, Says Father's Absence in Child's Early Years Leaves a "Quiet Cost" That Lasts a Lifetime Three-Month Age Cap for Adoptive Mothers' Maternity Benefit Struck Down: Supreme Court Reads Down Section 60(4) of Social Security Code Bank Cannot Rely on Charter Party Agreement to Justify Remittance Contrary to Customer's Instructions: Supreme Court 19 Candidates Linked to Accused, Papers of Five Subjects Leaked: Allahabad High Court Upholds Cancellation of UP Assistant Professor Exam Result

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