BUPPULARI CHINNA BRAHMANNA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners B.C. Brahmanna and Raj Kumar were at the relevant time, Managing Director and Director respectively of M/s Swarna Cements Ltd. a Company manufacturing cement and having its Administrative office at Hyderabad (A.P.), (the Hyderabad Company). M/s Rajasthan Refractories (P) Ltd. (the Jaipur Company) is also a private company manufacturing Refractory bricks, insulation bricks, Refractory concrete etc. and having its registered office at Jaipur (Raj.). The Transport Company, M/s Associated Road Carriers Ltd., is a public limited company having its registered office at Calcutta and Head Office at Secundrabad. Bal Raj respondent Np. 2 was the Circle Manager of this Transport Co. at its Jaipur office.

(2.) ON October 29, 1984 the Hyderabad Company placed an order with Jaipur Company for purchase of Refractory Bricks, insulation Bricks, Refractory concrete etc. worth Rs. 12,35,775, 17 P. The terms and conditions agreed between the two, interalia, included that the delivery of the goods shall be made at the factory site of the Hyderabad Co. at Mallacheruva village Kodak Taluka in Nalgoda district within 12 weeks from the date of letter of intent and the commencement of the first consignment shall start from the eighth week and the delay in delivery would attract penalty between 1/2% to 5% of the total cost of contract. It was further agreed that the goods would be of the standard, quality and specification as given in the Schedule 1 -B of the Purchase Order and the defective and faulty material shall have to be replaced immediately at seller's cost and therefore the material shall be thoroughly inspected by the Jaipur Co. at its place, before offering the same to Hyderabd Co. for inspection at later's site. It had specifically been agreed that the prices were inclusive of packing, forwarding, excise duty, sales -tax, Freight up to the factory site of Hyderabad Company and any other duties, charges etc. payable and also transit insurance. The Jaipur company was to guarantee the satisfactory performance of the contract as per Schedule. The Hyderabad Company had to make payment of Rs. 2,95,354/ - in two installments, one with letter of intent and the other with purchase order. The balance price was payable against despatch of documents through their Banker, Canara Bank, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. The Hyderabad Co. had enclosed alongwith the purchase order a D.D. No. 31011578 dated 27.10.84 for Rs. 1,47,677/ - in favour of Jaipur Co. towards advance.

(3.) THE goods of the three consignments reached the factory site of the petitioners between 26.1.86 and 1.2.86. It was at that point of time that dispute over unloading of the goods appears to have arisen between the parties. According to the petitioners since the goods was below standard and not upto the agreed specification, standard, and quality, they had refused to take delivery thereof but the drivers of the Transport Company unauthorisedly and without their permission unloaded the goods. But according to the Transport -Company th.s goods was left with the Hyderabad Co. in trust as the said Company could not produce the necessary documents, duly retired by the consignee Bank. Such dispute gave birth to the Institution of Civil suits in the court of City Civil Judge, Hyderabad and to initiation of Criminal Proceedings at Jaipur.