UMA MINERALS BANGLORE Vs. MALABAR CEMENTS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF is the appellant. Suit was instituted for realisation of money. PLAINTIFF is a partnership firm, wholesale dealer in industrial minerals. PLAINTIFF had entered into an agreement with defendant for supply of sweetener lime stones at the rate of 100 to 150 MT per day to be increased to 300 MT necessary for manufacture of cement, as per order dated 28-4-1988. On the request made by the defendant, plaintiff identified good lime stones from Cuddappa and Dronachalam and a report was sent to the defendant quoting the ex mine rates given by Andhra Pradesh Government. PLAINTIFF later informed the defendant by letter dated 16-7-1988 that the materials could be moved out from Andhra Pradesh only on payment of mineral rights tax. Defendant later amended the purchase order and agreed to pay extra the mineral rights tax and surcharge in addition to the cost of materials, transportation charges and other expenses already agreed upon. Purchase order was accepted by the plaintiff by letter dated 8-8-1988. Defendant however declined to take delivery of 480.120 MT of materials stating that the same was below the standard prescribed. PLAINTIFF informed the defendants its inability to supply the variety and supplied certain other variety and requested the defendant to allow the plaintiff to take back the unaccepted quantity. Defendant did not give any reply. The cost of unaccepted material would come to Rs.1,13,000/-. Later plaintiff sent notice claiming the said amount. Defendant replied and raised counter claim for damages, contending that plaintiff had committed breach of contract. For disposal of the case we need not elaborately deal with the facts. Suffice it to say, suit was instituted by the plaintiff and that was decreed allowing the plaintiff to realise a sum of Rs.1,13,000/- as value of rejected quantity of 480.120 Mts. of lime stones less the amount actually received by the plaintiff on that account. Counter claim raised by the defendant was treated as issue No. 4 and answered by the trial court as follows :