V. S. AGGARWAL ( 1 ) MEC Tubes Pvt. Ltd. , hereinafter described as the plaintiff has preferred the present suit against the defendants for recover/ of Rs. 11,73,370. 00 besides interest. ( 2 ) THE relevant facts ,are that the plaintiff is a dealer of MS Blocks/gi pipes. Defendant, no. 2 is the sole proprietor of defendant no. 1. He has been dealing with the plaintiff since 1993. Orders were being placed from time to time with the plaintiff for supply of material. The plaintiff supplied the goods as per orders placed by the defendants from Calcutta, ghaziabad and Delhi. As per convenience supplies were made by the plaintiff. The plaintiff opened a running and current account In the name of defendant no. 1 in its account books maintained in the usual course of business. Whatever goods were supplied to the defendants the price was debited in the account of defendant no. 1 and similarly whenever payments were received from Defendant s from time to lime towards price of the goods the same were credited in the said account. The defendants were registered with the central Sales Tax and supplied Form C towards the supply of the goods and as such acknowledge the supply of the goods. ( 3 ) TO discharge their liability of making the payment of the supply of the goods, the defendants issued four cheques mentioned below:- a) Cheque No. 731697 dt 15/3/1995 for rs. 2,27,802. 13 b) Cheque No. 731700 dt. 31/3/95 for rs. 1,00,000. 00 c) Cheque No. 504351 dt 31/3/95 for rs. 1,00,000. 00 d) Cheque No. 504352 dt. 31/3/95 for rs. 1,00,000. 00 ( 4 ) ALL these cheques amounted to Rs. 5,53,639. 13. ( 5 ) AT the time of delivery of the four cheques, defendants had asured the plaintiff that the same would be encashed but they were all dishonoured. It is claimed that as per the statement of account there is a debit balance of Rs. 5,56,610. 88. Interest is being claimed at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of the billing i. e. 26/06/1998, as per the agreement. Hence the present suit. ( 6 ) SUMMONS had been issued to the defendants and the have put in appearance through the counsel. But on 25/5/2000 they were proceeded ex parte. Affidavit had been filed in support of the evidence. Hence the present suit. ( 6 ) SUMMONS had been issued to the defendants and the have put in appearance through the counsel. But on 25/5/2000 they were proceeded ex parte. Affidavit had been filed in support of the evidence. ( 7 ) PERUSAL of the bills, copies of which are Public Witness 1/2 to Public Witness 1/4 clearly show that the goods as such were supplied to the defendants. This fact gets further corroboration from the cheques PM 1/5, Public Witness 1/6, Public Witness 1/8 and public Witness 1/10 suported to have been issued by the defendants. All of them had been dishonoured. There is no explanation as to why the cheques were issued. Therefore, the plaintiff s claim, that in fact goods were supplied for which the payment- claimed is due, cannot be ignored. It must be held that amount claimed by the plaintiff of Rs. 5,56,610. 88 is due. ( 8 ) AS regards the rate of interest, the same is being claimed at the rate of 24% per annum. On of the face of it the same is excessive. Plaintiffs thus would be entitled to only recover interest at the rate of 12% per annum. ( 9 ) FOR these reasons the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for Rs. 5,56,610. 88 as the principal amount for supply of goods and;rs. 3,08,379. 56 i. e. interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the bills upto 26/6/1998, with future interest at the same rate on the decretal amount from the date of the filing of the suit till realisation.