INTERNATIONAL GENERAL ELECTRIC INDIA LTD Vs. HARADHAN SASMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is at the instance of a defendant in a suit for recovery of money and is against the judgment and decree dated 28th March, 2003 passed by the Learned Judge, 6th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Money Suit No. 234 of 1993 thereby granting a decree for Rs. 4,09, 840/- with interest @ Rs. 18 per cent per annum from 1st March, 1983 till the date of recovery of the decreed amount.

(2.) The respondent filed the aforesaid suit being Money Suit No. 34 of 1993 against the appellant for recovery of Rs. 4,09,840/- along with interest @ 18 per cent per annum from 1st March, 1993 till recovery of the amount being the price of cost of manufacture of the goods ordered for supply, price of additional equipments, interest on the price of goods and cost or charges for storage of those goods from February, 1991 till February, 1993.

(3.) The case made out by the plaintiff may be summarised thus: (a) The plaintiff carries on business of manufacture and supply of electrical control panel and the defendant is a public limited company which carries on various businesses including manufacture of electrical items and preparation of drawings and execution of projects particularly electrical projects. (b) Pursuant to an invitation or quotation made by or on behalf of defendant for manufacture and supply of six numbers of Relay Control Panels for 33 KV VOLTAS SF- six Breaker Controlling 33 KV 5 MVAR Capacitor, the plaintiff accepted the offer and ultimately a letter of intent dated 4th September, 1989 was issued on behalf of defendant and delivered to the plaintiff. (c) By a letter dated 4th October, 1989 addressed by defendant through its Regional Manager, the defendant placed an order with the plaintiff for manufacture and supply of six numbers of Relay Control Panel for 33 KV VOLTAS SP-6 Breaker Controlling 33 KV 5 MVAR Capacitor as per details mentioned therein, within six months from the date of approval of the drawings in respect thereof at the price of Rs. 48,000/- each ex works aggregating to Rs. 2,88,000/- of which 90 per cent was payable along with taxes duties, if any, within 15 days from the date of despatch and the balance 10 per cent was payable within 30 days from the date of receipt of those Relay Control Panels by defendant or its ultimate customers namely, Orissa State Electricity Board. (d) As the Relay Control Panels ordered by defendant were required to be custom-built, there could not be any type test of the same as are done in respect of some standard products of manufactured goods. The defendant never furnished to the plaintiff any money by way of advance for manufacture and supply of those ordered Relay Control Panels. (e) The defendant gave up and waived the conditions of type tests of the Relay Control Panels and/or 5 per cent Bank Guarantee for supply or delivery of the said ordered Relay Control Panels within the stipulated period. (f) The plaintiff accepted the said order without the conditions aforesaid and loaded his shop floor in his workshop for the manufacture of those Relay Control Panels and proceeded to make arrangements for manufacture of those panels as per order and advice given by defendant and requested the defendant to send to the plaintiff one set of the necessary drawings duly approved by or on behalf of defendant or the said Orissa State Electricity Board for manufacture of the same at an early date. (g) By letter dated 17th August, 1990 addressed by the defendant, the defendant forwarded and delivered to the plaintiff a copy of each of drawings duly approved by the Orissa State Electricity Board on 8th August, 1990 with a request to send copies of each of the final drawings duly modified and to inform the date of inspection of the materials or the Relay Control Panels prior to despatch. (h) Sometime in the last week of August, 1990, the plaintiff furnished to the defendant the desired copies of each of the said final drawings duly modified, as requested and the defendant accepted the said drawings as final. (i) On 30th July, 1990, the plaintiff informed the defendant about the progress of the said manufacture then nearing completion and also requested the defendant to make arrangements for stage inspections of the said Relay Control Panel under manufacture with a view to completing the manufacture and making delivery thereof at an early dale. (j) By the end of December, 1990, the plaintiff completed the manufacture of those six numbers Relay Control Panels as ordered and informed the defendant of the said fact of completion of the manufacture and also requested them to make inspection of those articles or to make arrangements for inspection. In spite of receipt of the said information, the defendant and its authorities remained quiet. At last, by letter dated 11th January, 1991 the plaintiff informed the defendant the fact of completion of the manufacture and requested them to inspect or make arrangements for inspection of the said manufactured goods then lying ready. (k) Although the defendant received the aforesaid letter dated 11th January, 1991, none from the side of the defendant came on any date before, on or after 11th January, 1991 for inspection of those Relay Control Panels fitted with additional equipments and accessories then lying ready for inspection and delivery or despatch. (1) In spite of repeated requests made by plaintiff to the defendant from December, 1990 the defendant remained inactive or silent or failed and neglected to make inspection of those manufactured Relay Control Panels with additional equipments and accessories which were lying ready for inspection and despatch. (m) Sometime before September, 1992, the plaintiff came to know that the contract between the Orissa State Electricity Board and the defendant had been terminated or cancelled by reason of the defendant's laches and then, the plaintiff detected the reason for inaction or silence of the defendant on the question of inspection and non-delivery. Ultimately, by an order dated 9th July, 1992 addressed on behalf of defendant by its Branch Manager, Calcutta, the defendant expressed its inability to settle the claims of the plaintiff on false pretexts and false allegations. Hence the suit.