KUNSTOCOM INDIA LTD Vs. IKEA TRADING INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant No.1 requests the Court to reject the suit, contending that the plaint does not disclose any triable cause of action and is vague in material particulars since there was no concluded contract between the parties.

(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are that the plaintiff sues the defendants for a decree in the sum of Rs.5,25,12,515.23/-, with pendente lite and future interest @ 14% per annum. The undeniable facts are that the plaintiff and the first defendant used to transact with each other; the latter used to place orders for supply of Barnslig Floor Lamps and other types of lamps. It is not disputed by the first defendant that such supplies were made during the period 2001-2003. The plaintiff also does not dispute that the price of the goods were paid for. The plaintiff's grievance is that sometime in 2003-04, the first defendant represented to it, stating that since its products were acceptable and of the requisite quality, the first defendant would pick-up certain quantities of the goods, of an aggregate value of Rs. 5 crores.

(3.) The plaintiff relies upon certain letters/e-mail communication dated 27.01.2004 of the first defendant as well as the minutes of meetings dated 09.03.2004, 28.04.2005 and 02.05.2005, to say that on the basis of defendants' assurance, firm commitments were entered into for purchase of machinery. According to the plaintiff, these were premised upon the prevailing EPCG scheme of the Central Government, which enable the trader/exporter to import machinery without payment of Customs Duty or payment of minimal Customs Duty, as the case may be, due to export commitment. The plaintiff has placed on record invoices to prove the purchase of such machinery and their importation. It is contended in this background that the defendants' subsequent volte face and the decision to place orders for such products to a third party caused the plaintiff wrongful loss. The plaintiff has in paras 48 to 59 spelt-out the said heads of loss. The plaintiff essentially relies upon the minutes of meeting dated 09.03.2004, subsequent minutes of meeting dated 04.08.2004 as well as an e-mail dated 15.06.2004, said to have originated from the defendants, to say that the quantity was known as also the price and even the nature and quality of the goods so defined.