MANALI PETRO CHEMICALS LTD Vs. EASTERN ORGANICS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE impugned order under challenge in this Original Suit appeal was passed in A. No. 2049 of 2001 in C. S. No. 302 of 1996 on the file of this Court. THE said application was filed under Section 10 of CPC with a prayer to stay all further proceedings in C. S. No. 302 of 1996 pending on the file of this Court, till the disposal of the Suit in C. S. No. 4437 of 1995 on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.

(2.) THE learned single Judge after meticulously going through the affidavit filed in support of the application in A. No. 2049 of 2001 and also the counter filed by the other side in A. No. 2049 of 2001 / appellant herein and after hearing both sides, has come to an unassailable conclusion that the petitioner in A. No. 2049 of 2001 is entitled to the relief asked for in the said application and accordingly allowed the application thereby granting an order of stay of C. S. No. 302 of 1996 till the disposal of the suit in c. S. No. 4437 of 1995 pending on the file of the Bombay High Court. Against the said order of stay, this appeal has been preferred.

(3.) 6. 1995. As per the agreement, all disputes would be subject to Madras jurisdiction and the first defendant is liable to pay interest at 2% pm for the first 30 days of default and thereafter, 2. 4% pm for the next 60 days and 3% pm interest for the delay beyond 60%. The first defendant was constantly in default and did not pay the amounts in spite of demands. In December 1994, the outstanding of the first defendant exceeded a sum of Rs. 3 crores, which was admitted by the first defendant in the meeting held on 30. 12. 1994. In the meeting held on 17. 5. 1995 between the first defendant and the plaintiff, the first defendant has accepted the outstanding due to the tune of Rs. 2,63,57,144. 75 as on 17. 5. 1995 and on representation of the first defendant, the plaintiff had demanded him to pay the due amount at the rate of Rs. 5,00,000/- pm. But the first defendant has committed default in repayment, which was pointed out in plaintiff's letter dated 7. 7. 1995. The plaintiff had sent remainders under letter dated 24. 7. 1995, 21. 8. 1995, 21. 9. 1995, 26. 9. 1995 and 6. 10. 1995. Ultimately, the plaintiff had stopped supply of their products to the first defendant. Hence, this suit has been filed for recovery of amount from the first defendant. 4 (v) The subject matter in suit No. 4437 of 1995 pending on the file of the Bombay High Court is entirely different. The said claim is one for damages. The said suit is for specific performance of the agreement dated 17. 5. 1995 and in the alternative, has claimed Rs. 8,82,96,500/- with 18% interest per annum, whereas under this suit the claim is for Rs. 2,63,57,144. 75. The question involved in the suit pending on the file of the Bombay High Court and the question involved in this suit are entirely different. The first defendant is not a necessary party to this suit. Only to succumb the liability of the first defendant, which was acknowledged under the agreement dated 17. 5. 1995, the present suit has been filed. The question involved in the present suit is about the liability of the first defendant to the plaintiff, whereas the question involved in the suit at Bombay is whether there was any breach of agreement dated 17. 5. 1995. The matters in issues are not directly or substantially the same in both the suits. Hence, the petition is liable to the dismissed. 5. The applicant has filed a rejoinder denying the averments contained in the counter filed by the respondents.