RAVENDER PAUL Vs. GOETZE INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has failed in his endeavour to obtain a favourable decree in the suit filed by him. The judgment and decree dismissing his suit is dated 3. 3. 2005.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff was that he was residing in Germany and was carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. LUBTECH mailrhoflstr. He stated that his business was to introduce buyers in Germany to manufacturers of leather products in India and take commission if the deal materialized and the Indian manufacturer sold goods to the Germany buyer. He stated that the respondent appointed him as an agent in 1994 to interact with a german buyer namely Speitch and Wesrsky GMBH and Co. He stated that as per the agreement he was to receive 5% commission on sales affected by the defendant on said German buyer. It was pleaded that in the season concluding in September, 1995 the defendant made sales to the said German Company in sum of Rs. 60 lacs and in the second season affected sales worth Rs. 80 lacs. Thus, appellant claimed that he was entitled to commission on said sum @5% of the total sale value i. e. Rs. 7 lacs. Stating that no payment was made to him hence he was entitled to interest @ 18% per annum, pre-suit interest was calculated @ Rs. 2. 31 lacs. Suit was filed seeking a decree in sum of Rs. 9. 31 lacs with pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum.

(3.) IN the written statement filed, respondents stated that in the year 1994 it deputed 2 of its representatives namely, Mr. R. Jayaraman and Mr. Vinod Verma, to visit countries abroad including Germany to obtain business. During the course of visit the plaintiff introduced himself to said persons claiming to be an expert in leather garments and boasted of being in touch with importers of leather garments in Germany. To test the plaintiff it was agreed between the plaintiff and said persons that for the ensuring summer season plaintiff would demonstrate his skills and would prove his worth of procuring orders by obtaining orders for sale to be affected by defendant. It was pleaded that the ensuing period was akin to the plaintiff being a probationer. It was pleaded that no agreement was arrived that the defendant would get any commission to the plaintiff for the first season much less @ 5% on the sales affected.