RAJKAMAL POLYMERS PVT LTD REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRE Vs. J K INDUSTRIES LIMITED REP BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present respondent had instituted a suit against the present appellant herein in the Court of the II Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) at Mysore (for brevity, 'Trial Court') in O.S.No.351/1994 for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,05,324/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

(2.) It was alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff company was giving business to the defendant company which was engaged in the business of mixing/processing of rubber and conversion of compound to tubes and in that regard a business agreement was also entered into between them. The defendant was expected to maintain quality of the goods and the regular supply of the goods to the plaintiff, which plaintiff in turn was to supply raw material input to the defendant company. Alleging that the finished products in the form of rubber tubes supplied by the defendant were defective and that the defendant was also liable to pay the rent from March 1994 to June 1994, the plaintiff had claimed a sum of Rs.2,05,324/- from the defendant with interest thereupon at the rate of 18% per annum.

(3.) The defendant in its written statement had agreed the business agreement which it had with the plaintiff wherein the defendant was agreed to receive the raw materials supplied by the plaintiff and to convert them into rubber tubes and supply it back to the plaintiff. It specifically denied that there was any violation of the condition of the terms of the agreement or that any poor quality products were supplied by it to the plaintiff company. With respect to plaint averment regarding the supply of two additional tube moulds on monthly rent payable at the rate of Rs.8,930/- is concerned, the defendant in its written statement has specifically admitted the receipt of two additional tube moulds, but stated that the rate of rent agreed as payable by the defendant to the plaintiff was at Rs.4,500/- per month provided the plaintiff supplied sufficient work input to it in the form of job work. The defendant denied its liability towards the plaintiff which was claimed by the plaintiff in its pleadings.