TAMIL NADU NEWSPRINT AND PAPERS LTD., REP BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER (LEGAL) MR. A. PONNAMBALAM HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.67, MOUNT ROAD, GUINDY, CHENNAI 600 032 Vs. K. ASHRAF ALI SOLE PROPRIETOR OF M/S. A.K. STEELS 6/3, VEDAGIRI MUDALI STREET, ALANDUR CHENNAI 600 016 AND ALSO AT NEW NO.57, OLD NO.14/A, SHOP NO. 1, ASHAR KAANA STREET, ALANDUR, CHENNAI 600 016

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Suit filed for judgment and decree against the defendant for a sum of Rs.79,11,378.84.00 together with interest @ 24% per annum on Rs.56,35,985.00 from the date of plaint till the date of realisation and for cost.

(2.) The plaintiff is a company, promoted by the Government of Tamil Nadu for manufacture of news prints, printing and writing papers. It has been stated that the equity of the plaintiff is held by the public and other financial institutions. The Board of Directors consists of All India Service Officers of Tamil Nadu cadre, representatives of IDBI and other persons from public and technical experts. The plaintiff has its factory at Pugalur in Karur district and provides employment for about 1800 persons directly and an equal member of persons indirectly. The plaintiff is in the manufacture of paper production.

(3.) The plaintiff issued a tender No. TNPL MM SS 2008023 dated 004.2008 for the sale of boilers and auxiliaries at EID, Pugalur. This tender was published in newspapers on 12.04.2008. The last date of submission of tender was 28.04.2008. The defendant had submitted the tender form on 28.04.2008. The defendant paid Rs.25 lakhs towards EMD. The defendant was called by the plaintiff vide its letter dated 30.04.2008 for discussion. The discussion were held on 005.2008 and the defendant was found to be eligible for two lots of boilers, auxiliaries and conveyors. The plaintiff held a meeting on 08.05.2008 with the defendant and it was stipulated that the delivery period would be three months from the date of realisation of LOI/sale order. This was accepted by the defendant. The defendant confirmed payment in three equal instalments. The defendant agreed and confirmed this by letter dated 12.05.2008. The plaintiff issued a letter dated 15.05.2008 calling the defendant to come for discussion on 16.05.2008. The defendant sought postponement of meeting till 20.05.2008 on which date the defendant was clarified with the terms and conditions. It was informed that the issues raised by the defendant with respect to payment of taxes by letter dated 12.05.2008 was contrary to the terms and conditions of the tender. The defendant was also informed that if they do not perform the agreement, the plaintiff would forfeit the EMD and blacklist the defendant. The defendant refused to sign the minutes. On 26.05.2008 the plaintiff issued a letter to the defendant. Sale order was placed on 31.05.2008 for two lots of boilers and auxiliaries at Rs.2,55,55,786.00 and conveyors at the rate of Rs.30,13,786 together with taxes. The terms and conditions clearly stipulated that the machineries should be cleared and removed on or before 31.08.2008. In clause 2 it was stipulated that the EMD amount of Rs.2,25,000.00 would be retained as security deposit against the sale order. In clause 3 it was stated that the total payment should be paid in three instalments. The defendant did not pay the advance amount according to the terms and conditions. The plaintiff issued a telegram dated 06.06.2008. On 09.06.2008 the defendant requested time to make the payment. The defendant stated that they would make payment of first instalment in the first week of July 2008 and the next two instalments at the intervals of 20 days from the first instalment. This was not accepted by the plaintiff. Another letter dated 18.06.2008 was issued by the plaintiff calling them to make payment immediately and start clearing the materials. The defendant by letter dated 20.06.2008 requested a copy of the minutes of the meeting and assured that they would pay the amount within one week. The plaintiff issued another letter dated 02.07.2008 and the defendant by reply dated 04.07.2008 stated that they would make the payment in three instalments. The plaintiff issued another letter dated 08.07.2008 and yet another two letters on 15.07.2008, 18.07.2008 asking the defendant to make the payment on or before 207.2008. On 207.2008 discussion were held between the plaintiff and the defendant and the defendant agreed that they would pay the first instalment on or before 04.08.2008. On 06.08.2008 the plaintiff issued yet another letter. By letter dated 12.08.2008 the defendant sought further time. The plaintiff issued yet another letter dated 14.08.2008 and again on 20.08.2008. Since the defendant had not performed their part as per the agreement, another contractor was appointed on 30.08.2008, who quoted Rs.1.97 crores against the defendant bid of Rs.2,55,55,786.00 putting the plaintiff to loss of Rs.55,30,786.00 and a further sum of Rs.1,05,199.00 towards re-tendering charges. The plaintiff issued a legal notice on 11.12.2008 and yet another notice on 14.10.2009. The defendant did not reply to the said notice, hence the plaintiff has come to Court seeking recovery of amount as claimed in the plaint.