CFA/984/2026 of M/S PINK CITY ROLLING MILLS PVT. LTD. Vs M/S SHRIRAM INDUSTRIES, on 4 August 2026

1. M/s Shriram Industries, Address Riddhi-Siddhi, Plot No. 9, 10, 11, Jaitpura, Jaipur-303704.

2. Laxmi Dev Authorised Officer/proprietor, M/s Shriram Industries, Address Riddhi-Siddhi, Plot No. 9, 10, 11, Jaitpura, Jaipur-303704 And Devdwa Ki Dhani, Village Nangal Kalan, Post Nangal Kalan, P.s. Govindgarh, District Jaipur-303712. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Nirmal Kumar Goyal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order(Oral) 04/08/2026 Per: Arun Monga, J.

1. The present appeal is filed against the impugned order dated 30.04.2026 passed by Learned Commercial Court, No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan, whereby the learned court partly allowed the suit and decreed only Rs.37,518.55/- along-with 6% interest from 05.08.2024 till the date of recovery. Suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 6,85,122/-.

2. The appellant is a private limited company. It supplied goods to the respondent on credit during financial year 2019-20. The

(2 of 6) [CFA-984/2026] total value of goods supplied was Rs. 63,67,711/-. The respondent paid Rs. 59,47,226.22/- against this. This left a principal balance of Rs. 4,20,484.08/-.

3. The respondent made further payments toward this balance. It paid Rs. 2,60,000/- in FY 2020-21. It paid Rs. 1,60,400/- in FY 2021, 22. This left only Rs. 84.08/- of principal outstanding.

4. Each invoice carried a stipulation, i.e., if payment was not made within seven days of purchase, interest would accrue at 24% per annum. The appellant relied on this clause to claim interest on the late payments, along with GST and CGST. It also relied on a cheque dated 11.10.2021, for Rs. 3,96,729/-, issued by the respondent. This cheque was dishonoured for insufficient funds. The appellant treated it as an acknowledgment of liability. On this basis, it instituted a suit claiming a total of Rs. 6,85,122.08/-.

5. The respondent did not appear despite service of summons. The trial proceeded ex parte. The appellant examined its authorised representative as PW-1. It exhibited documents marked as Exhibits 1 to 59.

6. By judgment dated 30.04.2026, the learned Commercial Court partly decreed the suit. It awarded Rs. 37,518.55/- together with interest and costs. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff seeking decree of entire amount sought by it.

7. Heard and perused the case file.

8. The appellant has annexed only the impugned judgment with the appeal. It has not placed any additional material on record. We, therefore, are proceeding on the footing that the facts noted

(3 of 6) [CFA-984/2026] by the learned Commercial Court are correct and stand taken by the appellant is gospel.

9. Perusal of impugned judgment reveals that the learned Commercial Court found that the parties did not follow the practice clearing payment in 7 days failing which 24% interest, as stated in the invoices. The respondent made lump sum, consolidated payments periodically. The appellant accepted and recorded these in its ledger without objection. No document referred in the impugned judgment showed the appellant ever protesting this practice. No document showed it insisting on invoice, wise settlement. 9.1 Learned Commercial Court found that the appellant made its first ledger entry for "Interest on Delay Payment" only on 02.10.2021. This was after the entire principal had already been cleared, on 04.08.2021. Before that date, the appellant had never demanded interest. A unilateral entry made after full payment of principal could not bind the respondent retrospectively. 9.2 It also noted that the conduct of both parties showed a running account arrangement, not strict invoice, wise enforcement. It would be inequitable to compute interest at 24% per annum from the date of each invoice. Interest was payable only on the amount that remained outstanding seven days after the last invoice. That amount was Rs. 8,20,479.36/-, outstanding after 31.12.2019. 9.3 Learned Commercial Court observed that Section 3 of Interest Act, 1978, empowers a court to award interest at a rate not exceeding the prevailing rate. This runs for the period from the due date to the institution of the suit. Where there is no

(4 of 6) [CFA-984/2026] written instrument fixing a date, it runs from the date of a written demand notice instead. No interest is allowed for any period after the debt is actually repaid. 9.4 The learned Commercial Court held that interest should run only up to 04.08.2021, the date of final payment of principal. It set the rate at 9% per annum, the rate then prevailing at nationalised banks. It did not apply the contractual 24%, given the running account nature of the dealings. 9.5 Interest was calculated by learned Commercial Court in stages, as the outstanding principal reduced with each part payment, as below: Outstanding Principal (Rs.) Period Rate Interest (Rs.) 8,20,479.36 01.01.2020 to 03.01.2020 9% p.a. 404.62 6,20,484.08 04.01.2020 to 19.03.2020 9% p.a. 11,449.21 4,20,484.08 20.03.2020 to 27.05.2020 9% p.a. 7,033.03 3,20,484.08 28.05.2020 to 01.07.2020 9% p.a. 2,719.00 2,00,484.08 02.07.2020 to 22.10.2020 9% p.a. 5,549.01 1,60,484.08 23.10.2020 to 29.06.2021 9% p.a. 9,866.47 1,10,484.08 30.06.2021 to 05.07.2021 9% p.a. 136.21 50,484.08 06.07.2021 to 04.08.2021 9% p.a. 361.00 Total 37,518.55 Each reduction corresponds to a part payment made by the respondent on the date noted. Interest was recalculated on the reduced balance thereafter. 9.6 Learned Commercial Court held that the contractual rate of 24% was inapplicable to the running account maintained between the parties.

10. Having examined the impugned judgment, we find no reason to interfere. Let us see why and how.

10.1. First, the true character of the dispute is the reverse of how the appellant framed it. Shoe is on the other foot, i.e., on the

(5 of 6) [CFA-984/2026] appellant's own case, the respondent had cleared the entire principal amount well before suit was filed. The dispute was never about non-payment of goods. It was about whether a contractual 24% interest clause could be enforced invoice by invoice against a running account. The appellant itself had treated that account flexibly for years.

10.2. Second, the appellant had an obvious course open to it, if it genuinely intended to hold the respondent to the seven day, invoice wise payment term. It could have accepted payments under protest. It could have put the respondent on notice that the seven day condition was not being honoured. It could have warned that future supply would depend on compliance. Nothing on record shows the appellant did any of this.

10.3. Third, instead, the appellant continued supplying goods throughout the relevant period. It accepted lump sum payments without demur. It made its first written claim to interest only after the principal had been fully paid. Even then, it filed suit only in 2024, close to the outer edge of limitation. It claimed a much larger sum of Rs. 6,85,122.08/-. This sequence undermines the appellant's position. It suggests the invoice wise 24% clause was never treated by it as operative in real time.

11. The findings of the learned Commercial Court are sound. The parties dealt on a running account. Interest could fairly be computed only from the balance outstanding after the last invoice. A rate of 9%, not the contractual 24%, was appropriate given the conduct of the parties. These findings call for no interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 30.04.2026 is affirmed.

(6 of 6) [CFA-984/2026]

12. All pending application(s) stand disposed of. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (ARUN MONGA),J 1/Aman/Aarzoo