LAWS(DLH)-2009-3-341

EVEREST BOX MANUFACTURING CO. THROUGH ITS PROP. SH. UMESH GUPTA Vs. DARSHAN VANASPATHI THROUGH ITS PROP. DARSHAN OILS LTD.

Decided On March 02, 2009
Everest Box Manufacturing Co. Through Its Prop. Sh. Umesh Gupta Appellant
V/S
Darshan Vanaspathi Through Its Prop. Darshan Oils Ltd. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 31,92,080/ - with pendente lite and future interest @ 10% p.a. till realization.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff is a proprietorship firm carrying on business of manufacturing corrugated boxes under the name and style of M/s. Everest Box Manufacturing Co. The plaintiff firm is on the list of approved suppliers of corrugated boxes for Hindustan Lever Ltd. During August/September, 2000 the defendant firm had approached the plaintiff firm for purchase of corrugated board boxes of various sizes for packing their plastic containers containing vegetable ghee etc. The parties to the suit had agreed for the rates and other terms and conditions of payment and quality of the corrugated boxes to be supplied by the plaintiff firm to the defendant firm from time to time. In terms of agreement between the parties the corrugated boxes were to be supplied by the plaintiff firm to the defendant firm on credit basis with five months period after delivery of goods. As per the orders placed by the defendant firm from time to time, the plaintiff firm supplied the corrugated boxes of various sizes to the defendant firm as mentioned in the bills raised upon the defendant firm. The corrugated boxes were supplied by the plaintiff firm to the defendant firm on receipt of U.P. Sales Tax Form No. 31 furnished by the defendant firm.

(3.) THIS suit was filed by the plaintiff firm on 28.4.2005. The defendant was served with summons of the suit on or around 9.12.2005 as is apparent from the proceedings of 9.12.2005. The defendant has failed to file its written statement since then till date despite repeated opportunities given to it. The plaintiff has now filed an application being IA No. 10228/2008 under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC seeking judgment and decree against the defendant firm for the suit amount claimed against it. The defendant firm was served with the notice of this application. Despite service of notice the defendant firm has not filed any reply to the application under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC.