AHAAR INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) LTD Vs. SIFTER PROJECT SERVICES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE subject suit for recovery of Rs. 44,62,827.00 has been filed by the plaintiff/buyer against the defendant which is the seller/supplier of various machineries and equipments and whose job also included their erection and commissioning. Machinery was towards the Roller Flour Mill having capacity of 120 MT per day. Recovery is claimed on the ground that entire machinery was not supplied, entire contract was not performed, and hence, the machinery already supplied are of no use to the plaintiff and hence the price paid towards machineries supplied be refunded.

(2.) THE facts as pleaded in the plaint are that the defendant no.1 sent its quotations dated 19.2.1996 (Ex.PW1/C) to the plaintiff, and which was accepted by the plaintiff vide its letter dated 21.2.1996 (Ex.PW1/D). Plaintiff claims that the defendants represented that by installation of the Flour Mill supplied by the defendant no.1, plaintiff could save over 20 lacs per year, and on installations there will be a saving of 40-50 lacs. It is also averred in the plaint that it was represented that the area occupied by this Flour Mill will be 26 ft. in breadth and 60 ft. in length and 38 ft. in height. It is also pleaded that the defendants had issued a similar advertisement in a Hindi Newspaper-Vyapar Bharti on 12.9.1996. Plaintiff pleaded a further representation by the defendants that 100 H.P. electricity consumption will be saved and as against four to six persons ordinarily required in older technology to operate the Flour Mill, in new only two persons would be required. It was further pleaded that the Flour Mill supplied was to be fitted on a steel structure as per the representation made by the defendants and there shall be a saving time of six months with respect to the installation of the plant. It is further pleaded in the plaint that the defendants represented that maintenance on the machines will be reduced to Rs. 24,00,000/- per annum. Plaintiff claims that it is on all these abovestated representations that the plaintiff accepted the quotation of the defendants dated 19.2.1996. Plaintiff further pleads that it accepted the offer of the defendants vide its letter dated 21.2.1996 and sent a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- alongwith this letter to the defendants as advance payment. It is pleaded in the plaint that the defendants failed to perform the contract as agreed, and failed to erect and install the Roller Flour Mill by the promised date of 30.4.1996. In the meanwhile, the defendant no.1 had received a sum of Rs. 23,00,000/- from the plaintiff. Plaintiff pleads that the machinery supplied by the defendants are lying with the plaintiff without the same being erected or commissioned and which have not been taken by the defendants in spite of various communications made to them. There are further averments in the plaint with respect to the other alleged breaches by the defendants, and also of a fraud being perpetrated on the plaintiff inasmuch as the defendants are stated to have misrepresented the facts. The plaintiff, therefore, has claimed the suit amount of Rs. 44,62,827/- which is broken up as per para 28 of the plaint as under:-

(3.) THE following issues were framed in this suit on 10.9.2001.