GRATEX MACHINERY CO Vs. MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal suit is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12-8-1985 rendered in O.S. No. 5905 of 1981 by the 9th assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras

(2.) Tracing the history of the above appeal it comes to be known that it is the appellant who filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.32,610,07 together with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. on Rs.28,900.17 and for costs, on pleadings such as that the plaintiff is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act : that the defendants are a company registered under the Companies Act : that the plaintiffs are one of the major and leading furnishers in the Madras City: that in response to the invitation of the defendants for quotations for furnishing their office at Madras, the plaintiffs submitted their detailed quotations by letter dated 19-2-1980 further confirming the same by another letter dated 16-5-1980 with the terms and conditions indicated therein : that the defendants by their letter dated 18-6-1980 accepted the quotations of the plaintiffs and placed orders for various items of furniture mentioned in the letter.

(3.) The further averments of the plaintiffs, as pleaded in the plaint, are that the defendants wanted the work to be executed by the plaintiffs under the supervision of their Architects M/s NGOR. Bombay and required the plaintiffs to commence the work only after Mr. Dinesh Kale of M/s NGOR gave the necessary instructions : that the respondents had agreed to the payment of the amount as stipulated in the plaintiffs letters that the plaintiffs by their letter dated 2-7-1980 informed the defendants that the quotations submitted by them on 19-7-1980 was valid only for 30 days therefrom : that the defendants accepted the quotations only on 8-6-1980; that in the intervening period the cost of the raw materials have gone up by 20% and requested for an increase of 15% of the prices already quoted : that the defendants agreed to the said request of an increase of 15% in accordance with which the plaintiffs purchased the raw materials and carried on with the work after due inspection by the defendants architect and approval.