Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K 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