STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. PARESH AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the appellant-original defendant has been filed being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 18-4-1996 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court No.16, Ahmedabad, in Civil Suit No.6427 of 1986 whereby the suit of the plaintiff was allowed and declaration and permanent injunction was granted against the defendant.

(2.) The facts in short are that in pursuance of invitation to tender for supply of Glycerin as per ISI Specification No.1796/1961 Part-II Technical Grade Pure Glycerin, the plaintiff submitted its quotation. It was alleged by the plaintiff that as quotation submitted by the plaintiff was accepted, the plaintiff placed orders with M/s Mysore Sales International Ltd. However, as the said Company was under strike, the plaintiff requested for extension of delivery period. Since the request was rejected, the plaintiff could not supply the goods as the defendant could not carry out the inspection of goods lying ready with the principal of the plaintiff. Consequently, the defendant terminated the contract under intimation to the plaintiff since the defendant had to purchase goods at the risk and cost of the plaintiff by spending an excess amount of Rs.37,369=59. Since the plaintiff committed breach of the contract, it was liable to pay the said amount and further issued recovery certificate at mark 3/2 to recover the said amount as a land revenue. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiff restraining the defendant from recovering the aforesaid amount by arrears of land revenue.

(3.) In the written statement filed by the defendant, it was contended that the suit was not maintainable and the Court had no jurisdiction to hear the suit. It was further contended that when the inspector of the defendant visited the manufacturing place at Bangalore, it was informed that the store was not ready and due to the strike, no inspection could be possible and the inspection call of the plaintiff was treated as false. When Junior Inspector of the defendant visited the manufacturing place on second call, it was informed by the principal of the plaintiff that there was no stock of glycerin and hence, second call was also treated as false. Hence, since the plaintiff was unable to supply goods and sought extension of delivery period, the defendant had to purchase the stores from outside incurring an additional expenses and hence, sought to pay the excess expenses incurred. It was therefore requested that the suit be dismissed.