SAROJ KAPUR Vs. NITIN CASTING LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The relief claimed in this suit by the plaintiffs is for a preliminary decree for rendition of accounts against the defendant. It is stated in the plaint that M/s. Allied Metal Industries, plaintiff No. 2 was appointed as agent by the defendant by a letter dated 29/31-12-1973 for representing the defendant in all matters including follow- up of all enquiries and the business introduced directly or indirectly through the organisation of the plaintiff. The terms on which the plaintiff No. 2 was appointed as agent are contained in the said letter dated 31-12-1973. It is further stated that as per the agreement dated 31-12-1973 the plaintiffs were entitled to 5% commission on all the orders received during the subsistence of agency from the territory of Uttar Pradesh besides the incidental expenses actually incurred. The defendant company terminated the agency on 20-9-1975. The case of the plaintiffs is that the defendant did not pay the commission, nor settled nor submitted any statement of account of commission due to the plaintiffs. The defendant company had agreed to pay the commission for the entire business introduced up to 20-10-1975, one month's period being the notice period during which the goods were despatched by the defendant company to different constituents of the plaintiffs. It is further stated that on 1-6-1977 the defendant company withheld the payment and the settlement of the commission on the ground that some parties mentioned in the letter had not paid various sums of money due to the defendant. It is further claimed that the defendant company in spite of their undertaking to settle the payment of commission as contained in the letter dt. 1-6-1977 have failed to fulfil their commitments. It is further claimed that the plaintiffs have introduced the total business of Rs. 20,50,688.40. Despite various demands made the defendant has not settled the account of the plaintiffs and that is how the necessity of filing this suit has arisen. It is claimed that a decree for rendition of accounts be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and the defendants be directed to render the account of the commission which has become due and payable to the plaintiffs.

(2.) The defendant has contested the suit and repudiated the claim of the plaintiffs. In the written statement filed on its behalf it is stated that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action. The plaintiffs are under a statutory obligation to render accounts of all the dealings with the defendant and the plaintiff is not entitled either under the statute or under the contract to claim accounts from the defendant Jurisdiction of this court to try the suit was denied and a further plea was taken that the suit of the plaintiff was not within time. However, the appointment of the plaintiffs as agents of the defendant vide agreement dated 31-12-1973 was not denied. It is further stated that the validity of the agreement expired on 30-6-1974 and thereafter the said agreement was not revalidated. It is further stated that the defendant issued a termination letter No. 25041 dated 21-9-1975 effecting the termination from 20-10-1975. The claim of the plaintiff for payment of commission was denied on the ground that the defendant company has paid all the commission payable to the plaintiff. It was further stated that the plaintiff was only entitled to commission on orders booked up to 30-10-1974 and material despatched up to 20-10-1975.

(3.) The plaintiffs have filed the replication by which the pleas raised by the defendant were controverted and reiterated their claim as laid in the plaint.