ANUPMA RUBBER PVT LTD Vs. BATA INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed against the order of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palwal, dated June 6, 1998.

(2.) The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of damages against the defendant and also for declaration and injunction. According to the plaintiff, it entered into an arrangement with the first defendant to manufacture Hawai Chappals for the plaintiff, as per its specifications, standards and quality out of the raw materials supplied by the plaintiff to the first defendant and certain machinery and equipment were also supplied by the plaintiff to the first defendant for the purpose of carrying out the work. Some machinery supplied by the plaintiff was returned while the other machinery was retained by the first defendant. The first defendant also executed a power of attorney in favour of the second defendant-Bank, authorising the second defendant to receive the payment from the plaintiff of the amount due to the first defendant from the plaintiff. During June 1989, the second defendant made a demand of Rs. 20,83,027.44 paise from the plaintiff on the ground that the said sum was due. On verification, the plaintiff found that it did not receive 12 bills of an amount of Rs. 5,63,440.80 Paise and no goods had been received by the plaintiff from the first defendant in respect of those 12 bills, which were submitted by the second defendant for payment. When the director of the first defendant was confronted with the said position, he admitted in his letter dated 29.6.1989 that those 12 aforesaid invoices were forged and no Hawai Chappals had been supplied and the first defendant also requested the second defendant not to recover any amount from the plaintiff under those bills. In view of these facts, the plaintiff lost confidence in the first defendant and ac- cordingly terminated all transactions with the first defendant and demanded the first defendant to return the machinery and equipment belonging to the plaintiff but the first defendant neglected to return the machinery and is now using the same for its own purpose. While so, the second defendant demanded the plain- tiff to pay Rs. 20,83,027.44 paise. Besides, the first defendant also supplied defec- tive Hawai Chappals and the first defendant has to reimburse the plaintiff for the same. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the suit for recovery of the machinery and the equipment which were supplied by the plaintiff to the first defendant and also for the recovery of Rs. 24,43,197.24 Paise with future interest.

(3.) The suit was filed on 14.6.1990.