Limitation For Executing Partition Decree Not Suspended Till Engrossment; Right To Seek Engrossment Subsists During 12-Year Execution Period: Allahabad HC Unilateral Revocation Of Registered Gift Deed Through Sub-Registrar Is Void, Donor Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mediation Cannot Be Forced Upon Unwilling Party In Civil Suits; Consent Of Both Sides Essential: Bombay High Court Unmarried Daughter Not Entitled To Freedom Fighter Pension If Gainfully Employed At Time Of Father's Death: Calcutta High Court Section 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Denied For Lack Of Formal Divorce From First Marriage: Delhi High Court ONGC Cannot Demand Security From Award Holder After Giving ‘No Objection’ To Withdrawal Of Deposited Amount: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sedative Drugs Like Tramadol Impact Mental Fitness Of Declarant; Bombay High Court Acquits Man Relying On Doubtful Dying Declarations Postal Tracking Report Showing 'Refusal' Not Conclusive Proof Of Service If Denied On Oath: Delhi High Court Encroachments Near Military Installations Pose National Security Threat; Remove Illegal Constructions Within Three Months: Rajasthan High Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs State To Decide On Legality Of Charging Fees For Downloading FIRs From 'SAANJH' Portal Wife’s Educational Qualifications No Bar To Seeking Maintenance If Actual Employment Is Not Proven: Orissa High Court Mere Telephonic Contact Without Substance Of Conversation Cannot Establish Criminal Conspiracy: Madhya Pradesh High Court Serious Allegations Like HIV/AIDS Imputations Require Corroboration, Cannot Rest Solely On Unsubstantiated Testimony: Karnataka High Court Family Court Cannot Refuse Mutual Consent Divorce Merely Because Parties Are Living Separately 'Without Valid Reason': Kerala High Court Collective Attempts By Advocates To Overbear Presiding Officer Not Protected Professional Conduct: Madras High Court Dismisses Quash Petitions No Legal Evidence Required To Forward A Person To Trial? Rajasthan HC Slams Police For Implicating Accused In NDPS Case Solely On Co-Accused's Statement Accused Must Be Physically Present In Court To Furnish Bonds Under Section 91 BNSS: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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