STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Vs. SHREE KRISHNA INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 04-08-2017 passed by the Judge, Commercial Court (District Level), Naya Raipur in Civil Suit No.3-A/2016, by which, respondent/plaintiff's suit for specific performance and damages has been partly decreed by directing the appellants/defendants to accept supply of 1,49,393 number of school bags from the plaintiff, upon payment of Rs.2,75,60,020.64 to the plaintiff firm along with simple interest @ 10% on annual basis from the date of filing of the suit till the date of recovery.

(2.) The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit seeking decree of specific performance of contract and in the alternative, for payment of damages of Rs.2,75,60,020.64 on the pleadings, inter alia, that pursuant to NIT dated 15-02- 2011, Ex.P-2, tender was submitted for supply of school bags. Plaintiff's tender was accepted and work order was issued on 13-04-2011 with certain terms and conditions, which was not acceptable to the plaintiff, therefore, separate agreement was executed on that very date between the plaintiff and the defendant (Ex.P-8-C) in the matter of supply of 3,03,555 school bags. Plaintiff's case had been that the plaintiff, after entering into the said agreement, prepared school bags in required numbers, which was supplied from time to time. However, when the last lot was taken to the defendant's store for delivery, out of that, only 29,612 number of school bags were accepted and remaining 1,49,393 bags were not accepted and returned. The plaintiff approached the authorities for accepting balance quantity of school bags, which were not accepted and soon thereafter, another letter was issued by the respondent on 14-07-2011 reducing the quantity of supply of school bags from 3,03,555 to 1,54,162. This gave rise to dispute between the parties. A Legal notice was given for supply of remaining quantity of school bags, which was not accepted, resultantly, the plaintiff filed suit.

(3.) The defendants resisted the claim firstly, by taking stand that the conditions No.4 & 5, as stipulated in the work order dated 13-04-2011, Ex.P10(C) always constituted the terms and conditions of supply under the agreement dated 13-04-2011, Ex.P-8(C) between the parties, under which, the defendants had a right to unilaterally alter the quantity of supply. Invoking this contractual right, the defendants reduced the quantity of supply and therefore, the plaintiff could not seek decree for specific performance for supply of remaining quantity of school bags. In reply to the plaintiff's specific averments regarding attempt made to supply entire balance quantity of school bags on 09- 07-2011, the defendants took a stand that no such supply was made and in fact, the plaintiff supplied only 29,612 number of school bags, in respect of which, payments have already been made to the plaintiff.