FUJITSU ICIM LIMITED Vs. KLG SYSTEL LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s KLG Systel Ltd., respondent, filed a suit for recovery of Rs.12,86,060/16 against the appellant under the provisions of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The suit arose out of a purchase order dated 2/8/1994 placed by the respondent on the appellant for supply of software including installation, commissioning and providing facility to personnel of their purchaser, FEDO. In terms of the purchase order the supply was alleged to have been made and out of the total contract amount of Rs.26,83,012.80, after making part payments, a sum of Rs.7,59,104.00 is stated to have remained unpaid. A further claim of Rs.76,000.00 was made providing training to FEDO personnel as required in terms of the agreement between the parties and for which a bill dated 23/8/1995 was raised.

(2.) Summons were taken out in prescribed form and the appellant applied for un-conditional leave to contest the suit. Apart from various preliminary objections, on merit, it was pleaded that the respondent failed to fulfil the performance requirement under the purchase order dated 2/8/1994 which fact was alleged to have been admitted by the respondent. A categorical averment was made in sub para (j) that performance of the order was to be to the satisfaction of FACT. Thus in the absence of any satisfaction of the FACT, it was alleged that the respondent was not entitled to the balance amount under the contract. The appellant further alleged that in fact FACT had expressed its dis-satisfaction with the software package supplied by the respondent and had with-held payment and levied damages of Rs.9.30,374.00 apart from encashing a bank guarantee of Rs.5.2 lacs of the appellant. This was stated to be to the knowledge of the respondent.

(3.) The application for leave to defend filed by the appellant was dismissed by the impugned order dated 23/4/2001 of the learned Single Judge and the suit was decreed with cost.