ITI LTD Vs. BHARAT PHOTO CIRCUITS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant prayed for a decree to be passed against respondent No.1 in sum of Rs. 23,52,491.69 of which the principal sum due was Rs. 18,97,170.73 and the balance pre-suit interest, on the pleading that for goods to be supplied by respondent No.1, it had received 90% advance and that all goods as per specifications were not supplied. A decree in sum of Rs. 9,92,000/- was prayed for against respondent No.3 on the plea that at the asking of respondent No.1 respondent No.3 had issued two bank guarantees in sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- and Rs. 5,00,000/- which were payable on demand to secure 90% advance paid by the appellant to respondent No.1 for the contracted goods. Rs. 8,00,000/- was the principal sum claimed against respondent No.3 and the remainder was the interest. Impleaded as defendant NO.2 in the suit was the Managing Director of respondent No.1 and since learned counsel for the appellant concedes that said respondent was neither a guarantor nor gave any indemnity in favour of the appellant concerning the debt of respondent No.1, the question of any decree being passed against said respondent does not arise.

(2.) The suit has been dismissed.

(3.) We would have expected the pleadings in the plaint to plead that 'X' quantity of printed circuit boards, the contracted goods, had to be supplied. Followed by a pleading as to the agreed rate : "R . Followed further by the pleading that for the 'X' quantity of goods at the agreed rate 'R' the total amount payable was 'X x R'. 90% thereof, say 'A' was paid. Goods supplied as per contract were 'X - Y' for which the price payable would be (X - Y) x 'R'. Therefore the amount refundable is A - (X - Y) x 'R'. Unfortunately the pleading does not bring out as above.