1. The plaintiff is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 79, Shambhunath Pandit Street, Kolkata - 700020 and carrying on business from Room No. 527, Poddar Court, 18, Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata - 700001 [hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff company'] engaged in the business of the construction and real estate. Wherein, on the other hand defendant is a company incorporated under the provisos of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Plot No. 638, Urla Industrial Complex, Raipur - 493221 [hereinafter referred to as 'defendant company'] engaged in the similar line of business as that of the plaintiff company. The plaintiff company has instituted this suit against the defendant company praying for a decree of Rs. 2,32,20,000/- (Rupees Two Crore Thirty Two Lakhs Twenty Thousand Only), which includes the principle outstanding amount due to the plaintiff company and also interest @ 18% p.a. is calculated from 23rd August, 2013 to 28th August, 2017. And further the plaintiff company has also prayed for interest pendente lite till the date of realization of amount.

2. The chronological facts leading to the instant case in delineated below:

a. The plaintiff company and the defendant company entered into an agreement dated 28th August, 2013. Wherein, plaintiff company and the defendant company were to jointly develop properties situated at Raipur.

b. On 28th August, 2013 the plaintiff company transferred an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Only) through Real Time Gross Transfer (RTGS) from an account maintained at ICICI Bank, Chowringhee Branch, Kolkata - 700016 to the defendant company's bank account. The payment was made under the agreement dated 28th August, 2013.

c. Subsequently, in the month of April, 2014 the plaintiff company and the defendant company met at the office of plaintiff company situated at Room No. 527, Poddar Court, 18, Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata - 700001. Wherein, it was orally agreed between the plaintiff company and the defendant company that the defendant company would look into the construction work and the plaintiff company would lend a sum of Rs. 1,35,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore and Thirty Five Lakhs Only) inclusive of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Only) already paid by the plaintiff company to the defendant company on 28th August, 2013. The loan amount was offered for a period of 2 years and interest to be calculated at the rate of 18% per annum.

d. Plaintiff company subsequent to this oral agreement advanced a sum of Rs. 1,20,00,000 (Rupees One Crore Twenty Lakhs Only) to the defendant through Real Time Gross Transfer (RTGS) between 28th April, 2015 to 24th March, 2015 from an account maintained at ICICI Bank, Chowringhee Branch, Kolkata - 700016 to the defendant company.

e. The defendant company after two years failed to pay the sum due to the plaintiff company and also the defendant company did not take any steps with respect to the agreement dated 28th August, 2013. Despite various attempts made by the plaintiff company through its advocate the defendant company failed to pay the sum due. Hence, the suit.

3. The Deputy Registrar on the request of the plaintiff certified that the defendant has not entered appearance either in person or through its advocate as on 16th January, 2019, in spite of substituted service by way of publication in the newspaper pursuant to the Order dated 13th December, 2018. Thus, following the order of this court dated 4th February, 2019, the matter was fixed for hearing as 'Undefended Suit'.

4. The sole point of consideration before this court is whether the plaintiff company is entitled to get the decree prayed for.

5. Mr. Aditya Kumar Lakhotia, the general manager of the plaintiff company, has been examined as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff company. It transpires from the certified copies of the bank statement of the plaintiff company maintained at ICICI Bank, Chowringhee Branch, Kolkata - 700016 which has been collectively marked as Exhibit "A" that the plaintiff company on various occasions has duly made the payments to the defendant company through Real Time Gross Transfer (RTGS). During the examination of the witness of the plaintiff company has deposed that the defendant company in their balance sheet had shown that an amount of Rs. 1,35,00,000/- (One Crore Thirty Five Lakhs Only) is outstanding in terms of the loan taken from the plaintiff company, the Registrar of Companies certified the copies of the balance sheet of the defendant company for the financial year 2014 - 2015 and also for the financial year 2017 - 2018 which has been tendered and marked collectively as Exhibit "B" and Exhibit "C" respectively. Further, it is deposed by the witness that the plaintiff company has confirmed the registered address of the defendant company through the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs and the same has been marked as Exhibit "D".

6. The plaintiff company by a letter dated 13th December, 2016, demanded the principal sum of Rs. 1,35,00,000/- (One Crore Thirty Five Lakhs Only) along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the defendant company as well as from its two directors, namely, Mr. Rajendra Kumar Kedia and Mr. Rahul Kedia. The said notice was sent through Speed Post to the defendant company and the directors, wherein, the said notice was returned with the endorsement "refused" but the said notice was duly served upon the two directors of the defendant company, namely, Mr. Rajendra Kumar Kedia and Mr. Rahul Kediaand the same has been collectively marked as Exhibit "E". Further the witness deposed that another attempt was made to serve notice of demand to the defendant company through an e-mail dated 14th December, 2016 addressing the two directors of the defendant company on their official e-mail address. The letter dated 13th December, 2016 was sent as an attachment to the said e-mail dated 14th December, 2016. The said e-mail was successfully served on the official email address of the two directors of the defendant company and the copy of the same has been marked as Exhibit "F".

7. A legal notice dated 1st March, 2017 was issued by the plaintiff company through their advocate against the defendant company with respect to the amount of Rs. 1,35,00,000/- (One Crore Thirty Five Lakhs Only) along with the interest at the rate of 18 % per annum which is outstanding and the same has been marked as Exhibit "G" and Exhibit "H". The witness during the Examination-in-Chief deposed that the defendant company through its advocate has issued notice regarding the appointment of arbitrator with regards to the agreement dated 28th August, 2013 upon the plaintiff company. And the copy of such letter is marked as Exhibit "I" and Exhibit "J" respectively.

8. I have heard the counsel appearing for the plaintiff company and have perused the materials on record.

9. In my opinion the defendant company has never denied and in fact has admitted to have received a loan amount of Rs. 1,35,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore and Thirty Five Lakhs Only) from the plaintiff company. In any case, the disbursement of the loan amount of Rs. 1,35,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore and Thirty Five Lakhs Only) has been adequately proved by the plaintiff company. The defendant has not repaid the loan or any part thereof despite several reminders and the letter issued by the Advocate of the plaintiff company.

10. In my view the interest sort by the plaintiff, that is, at the rate of 18% per annum,

is not backed by any written documentary evidence, and accordingly, I am of the view that the interest claimed by the plaintiff company in the present suit is neither justified nor proved. Hence, interest at the rate of 9% per annum would serve the ends of justice in the present case. 11. In the above circumstances the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of Rs. 1,35,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore and Thirty Five Lakhs Only) along with interest to be calculated at the rate of 9% per annum from 24th March, 2015 till the date of realisation of the principal amount. 12. There shall no orders as to costs. The department is directed to draw up the decree expeditiously. 13. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, should be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.