ASSAM ASBESTOD LTD Vs. METALMAN INDUSTRIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision petitions involving a common question of law on territorial jurisdiction to try the suits at Guwahati were heard together and are now being disposed of in this judgment. The petitions are directed against the orders dated 14.3.2000 passed by the Ld. Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Kamrup, Guwahati in M.S. No. 165 of 1997 and M.S. No. 200 of 1997.

(2.) The suits arose out of the same trans- action. A brief history of the suits as are material for disposal of these petitions maybe noticed at the very outset. The case of the petitioner-plainti ff is that pursuant to the telephonic discussion with the respondents for purchase and supply of C.R. Hard coils, it placed an order for supply of 425 MT of C.R. full hard coils of 0.22 thickness in 895 mm width at the rate of Rs. 22.350/- per MT on terms and conditions with specifications stipulated therein. According to the petitioner, the respondents accordingly supplied 175.315 MT of the coils to it but on inspection by its Quality Control Officer, it was found that these goods were defective and not in accordance with the specification, etc. stipulated in the supply order. Due to the defects in the coils supplied, the galvanized sheets manufactured out of those materials had to be sold at discounted prices, thereby rendering the petitioner to suffer a loss of Rs. 258,076.95. Several letters were sent by the petitioner to the respondents to make good the losses but the same proved futile. The other case of the petitioner is that as per the terms and test certificate, challan in original with 2 copies and original Excise Gate pass with transporter's copy while despatching the goods, which were necessary for availing of MOD VAT benefit on the excise duty payable on the materials being manufactured from the coils purchased. It is the case of the petitioner that the said documents were not sent to it contrary to the terms of the said supply order. Repeated requests said to have been made by the petitioner did not prove fruitful with the result that the MOD VAT benefit could not be claimed by it. This, according to the petitioner, caused a loss of Rs. 1,69,117.00 to it. It was under the aforesaid circumstances that the two suits were filed by the petitioner against the respondents. Money Suit No. 165 of 1997 was instituted by the petitioner against the respondents for recover of Rs. 2,58,076.95 P. for damages for breach of contract arising out of the supply of the said defective goods while Money Suit No. 200 of 1997 was instituted for recovery of Rs. 1,69,117.00 from the respondents as damage;s for breach of contract arising out of omission to send the said documents.

(3.) The respondents resisted the suits and filed their written statements. In the written statements, they denied any liability of the claims of the petitioner and made assertions of facts, all of which are not relevant for the purpose of disposal of those cases. However, the contentions made by the respondents as are relevant for disposal of these revising petition are as follows:-