High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court Allahabad High Court Denies Tax Refund for Hybrid Vehicle Purchased Before Electric Vehicle Exemption Policy Entering A Room with Someone Cannot, By Any Stretch Of Imagination, Be Considered Consent For Sexual Intercourse: Bombay High Court No Specific Format Needed for Dying Declaration, Focus on Mental State and Voluntariness: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Allows Direct Appeal Under DVAT Act Without Tribunal Reference for Pre-2005 Tax Periods NDPS | Mere Registration of Cases Does Not Override Presumption of Innocence: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Previous Antecedents and No Communal Tension: High Court Grants Bail in Caste-Based Abuse Case Detention of Petitioner Would Amount to Pre-Trial Punishment: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Dowry Harassment Case Loss of Confidence Must Be Objectively Proven to Deny Reinstatement: Kerala High Court Reinstates Workman After Flawed Domestic Enquiry Procedural lapses should not deny justice: Andhra High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case Canteen Subsidy Constitutes Part of Dearness Allowance Under EPF Act: Gujarat High Court Concurrent Findings Demonstrate Credibility – Jharkhand High Court Affirms Conviction in Cheating Case 125 Cr.P.C | Financial responsibility towards dependents cannot be shirked due to personal obligations: Punjab and Haryana High Court Mere Acceptance of Money Without Proof of Demand is Not Sufficient to Establish Corruption Charges Gujrat High Court Evidence Insufficient to Support Claims: Orissa High Court Affirms Appellate Court’s Reversal in Wrongful Confinement and Defamation Case Harmonious Interpretation of PWDV Act and Senior Citizens Act is Crucial: Kerala High Court in Domestic Violence Case

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.,

Similar News