SINEXIMCO PTE LTD Vs. DINESH INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit for recovery of '84,15,000/-. It has been alleged in the complaint that the plaintiff is a company incorporated in Singapore and Sh. D.D. Gupta, who is its Managing Director and Principal Officer, is competent to institute this suit and sign and verify the pleadings on behalf of the plaintiff company. It has been further alleged that vide Sales Contract No. 3371 dated 29th April 1997, the defendant company agreed to purchase Australian Tyson Chick Peas from the plaintiff company on the terms and conditions detailed in the contract. Pursuant thereto the plaintiff company shipped 2000 MT of commodities valued at US$1,85,729.25, vide invoice dated 27th June 1997. As per the terms of the sale contract, the plaintiff drew Bill of Exchange for the invoiced amount. The Bill of Exchange envisaged payment by the defendant to Standard Chartered Bank, Singapore or any banker or trust nominated by it, within 90 days of sight. Bank of Punjab Ltd. Connaught Circus Branch, accordingly presented the Bill of Exchange for acceptance and payment by the defendant. The Bill was accepted by the defendant on 29th July 1997. The defendant paid a total sum of US$ 150,820 from time to time. The last payment of US$ 10970 was paid by the defendant company on 4th February 1999. It has been further alleged that as per the terms of Bill of Exchange, the unpaid amount was payable by the defendant on or before 5th May 1999. Since the balance payment was not paid, the Bank of Punjab, vide its letter dated 21st April 1999

(2.) The defendant filed the written statement contesting the suit and took preliminary objection that the suit was barred by limitation since it pertains to the transaction of the year 1997. On merits, it was alleged that the defendant company imported Australian Tyson Chick Peas from the plaintiff company on a number of occasions in the year 1997 and the total quantity imported by it was about 9487.650 MT. The quantity was, however, found short by 209.534 MT. Moreover, the quality of the commodity was not as per specifications. The disputes which arose between the parties in this regard were amicably resolved and no payment according to the defendant is due from it to the plaintiff. As regards consignment subject matter of the present suit, it is alleged in the written statement that the invoice of the plaintiff company stipulated delivery against acceptance though all other consignments were on the basis of documents against collection. This, according to the defendant, was done as the plaintiff had accepted the fact that the loss had occurred to the defendant due to bad quality and short quantity. Consequently, it agreed to make this concession. It has been further alleged that on arrival of the goods at the ports, the commodity was found to be only 472 MT as against the agreed quantity of 525 MT and on the matter being taken up by the defendant company with the plaintiff company, a letter was being sent to it by the plaintiff company agreeing to waive the interest and to receive part payments against the bill pertaining to that consignment.

(3.) The following issues were framed on the pleadings of the parties:-