NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LIMITED Vs. INDO GULF INDUSTRIES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (i) The Plaintiff/National Fertilizers Limited is a Government owned company. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing of Urea, Ammonium Nitrate (Lumps) and Ammonium Nitrate (Melt). Plaintiff has one of its units at Naya Nangal at Ropar in Punjab.

(2.) The period in question of the supply by the plaintiff to the defendant of Ammonium Nitrate spreads from February, 1989 till March, 1996 though actual supply has only been till April, 1995. The first contract was entered into between the parties for the period from February, 1989 to January, 1990. This contract was for supply of 6000 Metric Tonnes (A??MTA??) of which defendant lifted 1630 MT approximately. This contract was dissolved by the defendant in between the contractual period and a fresh contract was entered into being the second contract from 20.9.1989 to 19.9.1990. For the second contract the period of supply was from 20.9.1989 to 19.9.1990 for a quantity of 8000 MT and the defendant lifted a quantity of 7642.88 MT under the second contract. The third contract was for the period 20.9.1990 to 19.9.1991 extended to 31.10.1991 which was for the supply of 10,000 MT revised to 8000 MT and under which contract the defendant received 8548 MT. The fourth contract period was from 1.11.1991 to 30.6.1992 for 6500 MT and with respect to which a quantity of 8621.05 MT was lifted by the defendant. The next contract period was from 1.7.1992 to 30.6.1993 for 10,000 MT and the defendant lifted 2029.60 MT under this contract. The last contract period was from April, 1995 to March, 1996 for 1200 MT per month and of which the defendant lifted 1118.224 MT for the one month of April, 1995. For the first three periods, and which covered the period from February, 1989 to 31.10.1991 there were written contracts but with respect to next three periods commencing from 1.11.1991 and ending on March, 1996 there were no written contacts and supply by plaintiff was in terms of correspondence sent by the plaintiff to the defendant with respect to the quantity to be supplied and the rates.

(3.) There is no dispute between the parties with respect to the quantity lifted by the defendant and the disputes have arisen on account of the claim of the defendant that plaintiff has charged a higher rate than what the plaintiff ought to have charged.