LGF SYSMAC (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD Vs. SHALIMAR ENGINEERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present appeal the respondent is served by affixation at the Faridabad address which was stated in the memo of parties of the suit plaint. Ld. counsel for the appellant/plaintiff also states that the respondent/defendant did not appear in the trial court in spite of service through publication and was accordingly proceeded ex parte. Accordingly, it is held that the respondent is served in the present appeal.

(2.) This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the plaintiff in the suit impugning the Judgment of the trial court dated 16.02.2018 by which the trial court has dismissed the suit for recovery of Rs. 4,79,717/-, filed by the appellant/plaintiff on account of the respondent/defendant not supplying goods which were to be purchased by the appellant/plaintiff and for this purchase the appellant/plaintiff had advanced to the respondent/defendant a total amount of Rs.5,29,000/- vide cheques dated 19.11.2013 and 21.04.2014 for Rs. 3,29,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- respectively.

(3.) The facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff had filed the subject suit pleading that it is dealing in the manufacture of architectural hardware and fabrication machinery. The respondent/defendant partnership firm was dealing in manufacturing of press component which is used by the appellant/plaintiff for manufacturing of the machinery. The respondent/defendant had approached the appellant/plaintiff for sale of certain hardware and respondent/defendant had supplied one hardware vide Invoice No. 2348 dated 05.10.2013 for Rs. 38,966/-. Parties had entered into an agreement and at the time of signing of the agreement, the appellant/plaintiff had given a Cheque dated 19.11.2013 for Rs. 3,29,000/- as an advance payment. After the agreement was entered into between the parties, the appellant/plaintiff gave various purchase orders to the respondent/defendant and also released another Cheque dated 21.04.2014 of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The respondent/defendant in spite of receiving the huge amount as advance was delaying the manufacturing of hardware. Some hardware were thereafter supplied by the respondent/defendant vide four Invoice Nos. 54 dated 02.07.2014, 61 dated 14.07.2014 and 69 and 70 both being dated 30.07.2014. One hardware supplied by the respondent/defendant vide Invoice No. 70 for Rs. 7,922/- was found to be defective and hence was returned to the respondent/defendant. Since the respondent/defendant failed to supply the hardware, and had even failed to return the advance, therefore the appellant/plaintiff sent a Legal Notice dated 24.04.2015. Thereafter, the subject suit was filed for refund of Rs. 4,06,541/- alongwith interest amount of Rs. 73,176/-.