OXBRIDGE ASSOCIATES LIMITED Vs. ATUL KUMRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IA 1385/2017 in CS(OS) 3148/2015 (under Order XIII-A r/w Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC)

(2.) During the course of this suit, the plaintiff filed an application for attachment before judgment which was initially allowed by a judgment dated 21.12.2016 in IA No. 487/2016. That judgment however was set aside by the Division Bench on the defendant's appeal (judgment dated 20.01.2017 in FAO (OS) 19/2017), and the application was remitted for fresh consideration of this Court. Although that application remains pending, counsel for the parties agree that the present application filed in the meanwhile be taken up for hearing first.

(3.) The plaintiff is a company incorporated in England which specialises in the marketing and sourcing of pharmaceutical products. The defendant, as proprietor of a concern known "Medicine House", is engaged in the business of supplying such products. The present suit arises out of two purchase orders placed by the plaintiff upon the defendant. Purchase Order No. 205 dated 18.10.2014 (hereinafter referred to as "PO 205") was for supply of specified quantities of Letairis capsules of stipulated dosages. Purchase Order No. 213 dated 05.01.2015 (hereinafter referred to as "PO 213") was in respect of a drug known as Kuvan Powder. The case of the plaintiff is that, pursuant to the aforesaid purchase orders, the defendant issued proforma invoices stipulating inter alia that payment was required to be made in advance and that the delivery time in respect of invoices were three weeks and four weeks respectively. The plaintiff remitted the amounts due under the invoices. However, it is undisputed that no supply was in fact made under the invoices in question, although the defendant claims this was due to incomplete information being supplied by the plaintiff. The purchase orders were ultimately cancelled by the plaintiff and the plaintiff sought refund of the amounts remitted by way of advance payment. The defendant refunded a part of the amounts, but his failure to comply with this request in full has led to the institution of the present suit.