FIRM M.M. TEXTILES Vs. FIRM RAGHURAM TEXTILES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant -firm is the appellant. The suit by the respondent is for recovery of Rs.22,169.26 with interest. The said sum is composed of the following items:(1) Rs. 15,933.76 towards balance price for textiles (H.L. Semi variety cloth) of 3455 metres sold by the plaintiff, (who is carrying on textile business at Erode) to the defendant, (who is carrying on business at Bangalore) and delivered according to the defendant's directions through lorry at Bombay and (2) (a). Rs.4,853.10 towards the loss suffered by the plaintiff in the resale of the textiles of the balance 6833 metres of the same variety which were also sent by lorry to Bombay from Erode on instruction from the defendant, but, due to the defendant not taking delivery at Bombay lorry office, were brough back to Erode by the plaintiff and sold there. (2) (b). Rs.1362.40 towards the freight charges for sending the goods to Bombay and bringing them back to Erode as aforesaid, in respect of the above said 6833 metres of cloth.

(2.) ACCORDING to the plaintiff -firm it was selling to the defendant, between 12.9.1985 to 11.9.86, textiles including the above said 3455 + 6833, i.e. 10388 metres. The above said 10,388 metres of cloth were sent to Bombay as per Ex. B.13 (dated 17 -5 -1976) indent placed by the defendant with the plaintiff and the relevant invoices under which the plaintiff sent the goods are Exs. B.14 and B.15 (both dated 17.5.1976).

(3.) THE court below held that with reference to the above said 3455 metres, the defendant was liable to pay the entire Rs.15,933.76 and that it was the defendant who committed breach of contract in not having taking delivery of the goods and that the defendant is also liable to the plaintiff for the above said sum of Rs.4,853.10 and Rs. 1,362.40. The Court below also held that the defendant was not entitled to the above said discount and that even if so entitled, the defendant is not entitled to the relief relating to discount since the said claim was a counter claim and no Court fee was paid on it. Hence the defendant has preferred this appeal."