LAWS(MPH)-2007-2-58

INDORE ROLLING MILLS Vs. STATE OF M P

Decided On February 01, 2007
INDORE ROLLING MILLS Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the defendant aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court dated 5-4-1995 in C. S. No. 18-B/91.

(2.) THE respondent State of M. P. Irrigation Department through executive Engineer filed a civil suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 98,249. 80 along with interest on account of 55. 629 MT iron rods which were not returned after re-rolling to the State of M. P. as per agreement (Ex. P-l), dated 21-9-1971. Plaintiff State of M. P. used to send iron for the purpose of re-rolling to the defendant, however, defendants obtained the iron for the purpose of re-rolling but did not return it back in the form of rods. 7% wastage was allowed to the defendant. On different dates total 65. 547 MT iron was supplied after wastage of 7%. Defendant had to supply 60. 959 MT re-rolled iron rods, however, defendants supplied only 9. 22 MT. A sum of Rs. 1,00,132. 20 was due as value of goods not supplied. In spite of notices and acknowledgment made in the various communications particularly dated 28-7-1973, in which it was stated that remaining goods shall be returned, three tons per month. Ultimately, in all a sum of Rs. 98,249. 80 remained due, for the recovery of same the suit was filed.

(3.) THE defendants in the written statement contended that Bal Kishan did not execute an agreement in the capacity of Managing Partner. New iron was to be supplied, however, old scrap was supplied, thus instead of wastage of 7%, it ought to have been allowed at 15%. The Chief Engineer has admitted the said fact. After 15% wastage nothing was to be returned by the defendants. Value of the goods was not worth Rs. 1800/mt. The earnest money and security deposit was already with the plaintiff as such no amount was due. As the transaction had taken place at Indore, Court at Hoshangabad was not having jurisdiction. Shri balchand Jain, Executive Engineer was not authorized to present plaint on behalf of State of M. P. as such prayer was made to dismiss the suit.