LAWS(DLH)-2018-10-92

KUMAR INDUSTRIES Vs. SURESH KUMAR MITTAL

Decided On October 10, 2018
KUMAR INDUSTRIES Appellant
V/S
Suresh Kumar Mittal Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant in the suit impugning the judgment of the Trial Court dated 05.04.2006 by which the trial court has decreed the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking a decree for a sum of Rs. 6,72,331/-, for an amount of Rs. 4,48,359/- alongwith interest @ 12% w.e.f. 17.09.2001.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff pleaded that he supplied to the appellant/defendant aluminum wires vide Bill nos. 01, 07 and 011 dated 15.05.2000, 10.07.2000 and 30.09.2000 for a total sum of Rs. 5,38,247/-. To this amount of Rs. 5,38,247/-, a further sum of Rs. 10,112/- was the amount due to the respondent/plaintiff for the job work done by the respondent/plaintiff for the appellant/defendant and for which the respondent/plaintiff had issued its Bill dated 15.09.1999 hence making the unpaid amount to be Rs. 5,48,359/-. The appellant/defendant thereafter had paid Rs. 1,00,000/- on 17.09,2001 and the balance amount of Rs. 4,48,359/- remained unpaid. Pleading that the respondent/plaintiff is also entitled to interest @ 20% which came to Rs. 1,99,149/- and which was added to the principal amount of Rs. 4,48,359/-, the subject suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 6,72,331/- alongwith interest. The amount of Rs. 6,72,331/- claimed by the respondent/plaintiff included the sales tax amount of Rs. 21,523/-.

(3.) The appellant/defendant contested the suit and pleaded that the goods sent by the respondent/plaintiff under the three bills were defective. Under the Bill no.01 dated 15.05.2000, goods of an amount of Rs. 29,500/- were defective for out of the total amount of Rs. 1,32,720/-. So far as the Bill nos. 07 and 011 for Rs. 1,55,925/- and Rs. 2,49,602/- respectively, the case of the appellant/defendant was that the goods supplied were found to be defective entirely. The appellant/defendant did not deny issuing of the ST-35 Form to the respondent/plaintiff on account of the goods being supplied. The suit was, therefore, prayed to be dismissed.