TEJ INTERNATIONAL LIMITED Vs. DAWOOD SHOES PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tej International Ltd has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.8,99,798.00 against the defendant Dawood Shoes Pvt. Ltd. The suit has been filed under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It has been alleged that the plaintiff is engaged in the manufacturing and sale of the pairs of shoes and defendant company is engaged in the business of trading of shoes. The plaintiff had a long standing business dealings with the defendant. The plaintiff had been supplying the pairs of shoes to the defendant from time to time as per the purchase orders. The plaintiff received a purchase order dated 2/07/1996 at the head office of New Delhi of the plaintiff. The representative of the defendant came to the head office and clarified that out of the said purchase order 1224 pairs of shows be supplied to the defendant. The goods were to be sent through road transport. Accordingly, the plaintiff supplied the pair of shoes as per specifications amounting to Rs.6,34,248/-. The goods were sent to the defendant through the transporter M/s Jaipur Golden Transport Co. Ltd. The defendant is alleged to have accepted the said bill of exchange/hoondi but the payment is stated to have not been made. It is asserted that defendant had even written to the plaintiff that on account of certain deficiency in the goods they have deducted 25% of the bill amount. In this process the price of the goods besides interest calculated at the rate of 18% from 24/10/1996 to 19/02/1999 has been claimed.

(2.) In pursuance to the notice having been issued the defendants preferred an application seeking leave to defend the suit. It is not in dispute that plaintiff had agreed to supply the shoes of the agreed quality and according to the sample description approved by the defendant. The agreement is stated to have been entered into at Bombay where the purchase order was signed. It has been pleaded that no part of the cause of action had arisen at Delhi. In addition to that the defendants claim is that in utter violation of the terms of agreement the plaintiff supplied goods which -were defective and were of inferior quality. It did not conform to the specifications of the agreement between the parties. The contract as such was breached. The upper and the lower soles were of inferior quality. On receipt of the defective goods the defendants represented to the plaintiff that the goods were defective and of inferior quality. The defendant offered inspection to the plaintiff with respect to the quality of goods. the plaintiff with mala fide and ulterior motives rejected the defendants offer of joint inspection. Thereafter the plaintiff did not remove the defects nor replaced the goods and sent a notice of demand. A reply in this regard had been sent. It is denied in these circumstances that plaintiff was entitled to recover the amount. On these broad facts permission is claimed to contest the suit.

(3.) Plaintiff has filed a reply and denied that goods were defective or that the cause of action had not arizen at Delhi. The plaintiffs claim is that signed purchase order dated 7/07/1996 was received by the plaintiff at its head office. It was accepted at the head office at Nehru Place. The other assertions of the plaint were reiterated controverting the contentions of the defendant. By this order IA 6233/99 seeking leave to defend is proposed to be disposed.