SONA WIRES P LTD Vs. HEM CHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Hem Chand Jain filed a suit for recovery of Rs.2,16,076/- against M/s. Sona Wires Pvt. Ltd. and another on the basis that he is the proprietor of M/s. Venus Polymers which is carrying on the business of PVC compound manufacturing and trading. The defendant-company used to purchase PVC compound on contract basis. Defendant no.1 purchased 6000 kgs. PVC compound @ Rs.42/- containing 150 bags of total amount of Rs.3,01,090/- vide bill no. 147 dated 20.12.1999. The goods were ordered at the office of the plaintiff which were delivered at Ghaziabad, U.P. The goods were received by the defendants and the defendants were liable to pay the amount/sale consideration. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the defendants made part payment of Rs.1,71,350/- and Rs.49,500/- through cheque dated 6.6.2001 by which the amount was credited to the account of the defendant, leaving a balance of Rs.80,240/-. Since they failed to make the balance payment, the plaintiff claim interest @ 30% per annum after 30 days, in terms of the invoice. They served a legal notice on the defendant dated 11.11.2001. As no payment was received despite legal notice, the plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.2,16,076/- which includes the principal amount as well as Rs.18,240/- as the interest.

(2.) The suit was contested by the defendants, who filed the written statement raising the pleas as regards to territorial jurisdiction of the Court, the plaint not disclosing any cause of action and it was also stated that the materials supplied by the plaintiff were of inferior quality and the goods were delivered after the agreed date, as a result of which the defendants suffered losses. This fact was brought to the notice of the plaintiff and as such the plaintiffs are not entitled to any amount and in fact, the amount which was paid to them on 1.6.2001 was in full and final settlement of the amount claimed. The suit is also bad for misjoinder of parties.

(3.) On the pleadings of the parties the court framed the following issues vide its order dated 20.3.2003:- 1.Whether the court at Delhi has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit" OPD 2.Whether the suit has been filed by a duly authorized person" OPD 3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the balance amount of the bill of material so supplied" OPD 4.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the interest, if so, at what rate and for what period" OPP