USHA SHRIRAM INDIA Vs. SYNERGY MULTIBASE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUMMARY suit filed by M/s Synergy Multibase Ltd. in which appellant was impleaded as defendant No.1 and M/s Paras Appliances was impleaded as defendant No.2 has been decreed due to both defendants not being granted leave to defend. Appellant's application registered as IA. No.2565/2000 which was filed under Order 37 Rule 3(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure and I.A.No.5261/2003 filed by defendant No.2 under similar provision have been dismissed vide impugned order dated February 13, 2007.

(2.) SUIT seeking decree in sum of Rs. 30,52,598/- pleaded that appellant was engaged in the business of manufacturing home appliances such as coolers, room heaters etc. and defendant No.2 was a vendor of the appellant. That on November 25, 1995, the appellant desired to purchase 160 MT to 180 MT of PP Compound, used for the moulding of coolers, and the plaintiff responded by accepting the offer at the rate quoted vide its reply dated November 27, 1995 and while so doing, made clear that the term of the payment would be a 60 days hundi and that delayed payment upto 90 days would attract interest @ of 24% p.a. and beyond that @ 36% p.a. The plaintiff further wrote that there would be a price variation if price of IPCL increased and the current price for the PP Moulding was in harmony with the current price of the IPCL. It was pleaded that on December 2, 1995, the plaintiff clarified on the term of interest with reference to its letter dated November 27, 1995 and in response, the appellant confirmed the terms of the supply and required the goods to be delivered to either defendant No.2 or M/s Premier Home Appliances as per a schedule of delivery, which the appellant would intimate. It was pleaded that on December 23, 1995, the appellant sent a schedule, as per which PP Compound was to be delivered partly to defendant No.2 and partly to M/s Premier Home Appliances and that the plaintiff sent the first consignment on January 31, 1996 followed by further two consignments which were delivered to defendant No.2 against hundis issued by defendant No.2, which hundis were not honoured by the defendant No.2 or its bank. Alleging that the appellant made payment in sum of Rs. 3 lacs, suit was filed on the strength of the hundis issued, being three in number. The three invoices raised when goods were delivered to defendant No.3 were also relied upon as the written document, on strength whereof maintainability of the suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rested upon. Needles to state, interest was claimed on the basis of the rate recorded on the hundi.

(3.) IT is unfortunate that the pleadings of either party do not bring out the correct legal picture. This Court has often lamented at the poor quality of pleadings pertaining to commercial transactions. IT must be understood by legal practitioners that people carry on business as per the need of the hour, and when a legal dispute arises, it is the duty of the legal practitioner to carefully understand the facts and the circumstances surrounding the facts under which or in which the parties transacted business and then apply the law, to see what was the final jural relationship which bonded the parties.