RANA SUGARS LIMITED Vs. BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant in the suit impugning the judgment of the trial court dated 27.3.2017 by which the trial court has decreed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff for an amount of Rs.45,29,582/- along with interest at 9% per annum.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff/company is engaged in the manufacturing, marketing, sale and supply of electrical equipments and appliances for industrial and domestic purposes. In the plaint it is pleaded that the appellant/defendant approached the respondent/plaintiff for supply of electrical equipments. The appellant/defendant is pleaded to have placed purchase orders on the respondent/plaintiff which were received by the respondent/plaintiff at New Delhi. The respondent/plaintiff supplied the material as per the purchase orders issued by the appellant/defendant. The material was supplied to the works/offices of the appellant/defendant situated in different places at Uttar Pradesh. With respect to the supplies a total of 17 invoices were raised from the period 8.2.2007 to 30.4.2007 totaling to Rs.45,29,582/-. The appellant/defendant had issued C-Forms acknowledging receipt and acceptance of the material sent by the respondent/plaintiff against the subject invoices. The respondent/plaintiff on account of non-payment of its dues ultimately issued a legal notice dated 3.5.2008 but since the same failed to yield any result, the subject suit came to be filed.

(3.) The appellant/defendant contested the suit and pleaded that the goods were supplied after a long delay though time was the essence of the contract and that the appellant/defendant had rightly rejected the goods. It was pleaded in the written statement by the appellant/defendant that in the purchase order dated 23.3.2007, six items out of 21 items were supplied on time and the remaining items were delayed by about three/four weeks. It is pleaded that even if the appellant/defendant had accepted the deliveries, in terms of Clause 1 of the purchase order dated 8.1.2007 a penalty of 1% per week had to be paid by the respondent/plaintiff to the appellant/defendant. It is further pleaded that the respondent/plaintiff did only 50% of the commissioning and erection work and the appellant/defendant had to get the commissioning and erection work done from others resulting in huge delays and additional costs. It was pleaded that the issuance of C- Forms by the appellant/defendant was not an admission of liability but only indicated confirmation of the receipt of the goods. It was also pleaded that the courts at Delhi had no territorial jurisdiction because in terms of Clause 13 of the purchase order disputes between the parties were subject to the jurisdiction of the Chandigarh courts alone.