MINERALS AND METAL TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA NEW DELHI Vs. AGARWAL GENERAL ENGINEERING WORKS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Minerals and Metal Trading Corporation of India Limited (in short `mmtc') and its officers filed the present appeal challenging the order of learned Single Judge dated November 30, 1993 whereby the appellants were directed to refund Rs. One lac and fifty thousand with interest @ 17. 5% p. a. with effect from May 24, 1984 relating to sale note dated ECI/22 and further delivering 7 MT of aluminium ingots to the respondent company at the prevailing rate as on May 8, 1984.

(2.) THE controversy in the present matter is with regard to supply of 50 MT imported aluminium to the respondent M/s. Agarwal General Engineering Work Ltd. (in short the `respondent company' ). THE respondent company is engaged in the manufacture of conductors required by the Electricity Board. THE aluminium ingots used in manufacture of the conductors were to be supplied by the appellant. Admittedly the MMTC appellant was required to supply aluminium in accordance with the allotment order No. 11/12/83/71 dated Feb. 2, 1984. THE sale note provided for delivery of goods at Bombay provided requisite financial arrangements were made in prescribed time. THE terms of the sale note were subsequently modified and the delivery was to be made at Calcutta instead of Bombay. THE respondent made financial arrangements by opening irrevocable letter of credit through the Bank of India. THE supply took some time as the respondent company did not supply the requisite C form. THE respondent company supplied unfilled prescribed forms to be filled in later on. THE respondent company alleged in the petition that the MMTC with its officers malafidely did not supply the material in time and sought to extract additional price from the respondent company. MMTC proceeded on the basis of the terms and conditions of the sale note which inter alia provided for charging price as prevailing on the date of delivery and on this basis MMTC wrote letter dated May 12, 1984 to the respondent company whether it was still prepare to purchase the required ingots at the increased price and to confirm the same in writing. MMTC vide letter dated April 7, 1984 requested the respondent company to confirm whether it was prepared to lift the material from Calcutta. In response the respondent company initially communicated its inability to lift the material from Calcutta as it was not full truck load and supply was requested from Jaipur Depot. THE respondent company sought cancellation of allotment of 8 MT and requested for refund of its deposit of Rs. 1. 50 lacs. Vide letter dated June 13, 1984 the Asstt. Divisional Manager Jaipur Depot demanded a sum of Rs. 1,41,493. 42 with interest @ 17. 5% w. e. f. May 9, 1984 due to the Calcutta office. MMTC submitted that issue of outstanding of Rs. 1,41,493 arisen due to increase in price of aluminum ingots.

(3.) LEARNED Single Judge considered the submissions of learned counsel in detail and held that the rights of the people should not be put into watertight compartment and it should remain flexible to meet the requirements of various circumstances. LEARNED Judge also observed that a petition under Article 226 could be presented before any of the High Court within whose jurisdiction, the cause of action in respect of which reliefs is sought has arisen, wholly or in part, in view of insertion of the clause (2) by the 42nd Amendment Act, to Article 226.