RAJENDRA KUMAR Vs. NOSHIRWAN AND CO PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT/appellant has directed this appeal against the judgment, and the decree dated 17. 7. 1976 passed in C. S. 12-B/93 thereby allowing plaintiffs suit for recovery of the additional cost of Premier 118 NE car sold to the appellant.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that-Plaintiff/ respondent is a private limited company under the Companies Act and having its registered office at A. B. Road, Indore. The plaintiff is a dealer in automobiles. In response to an advertisement published by the Premier Automobile Pvt. Ltd. (for short PAL), Bombay, the appellant made an application for booking of a Premier 118 NE car and deposited Rs. 11,000/- in advance with PAL. The appellant was given priority number on 24. 9. 1985. Initially the car was to be delivered at Kota but PAL acceded the request of appellant and agreed to deliver the car at Indore through respondent, its authorised dealer. In letter dated 27. 4. 1990 PAL intimated the appellant that his booking number is likely to mature by the 15th of January 1990 and requested the appellant to fill in queries made in the attached letter and directed to get in touch with the dealer. The appellant completed each and every formality and deposited the prevailing value of the car on 16,7. 1990. However, the car was delivered to him on 6. 9. 1990. After the delivery of car the respondent made a demand for payment of Rs, 16,401/-, on the ground that Central Government has revised the rate of excise duty and made it effective from 22,8,1990. As such the appellant is liable to pay the same, The appellant opposed the said demand, as such, the respondent filed a suit for recovery of the additional excise duty as imposed by the Central Government of Rs. 16,401/- together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The appellant/defendant, resisted the plaintiff's claim and filed his written statement, The contention of the appellant was that the contract in question with the respondent was completed and concluded on 16. 7. 1990, when he had paid full price including the excise duty existing on that day and, therefore, he is not liable to pay the amount as demanded by the respondent. Learned Trial Court framed the issues and on evaluating the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties, decreed the plaintiffs suit by the impugned judgment; hence this appeal.

(3.) I have heard Mr. G. M. Chaphekar, Sr. Counsel with Mr. Kailash Agrawal for the appellant and Mr. A. K. Sethi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.