- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decided
- 29 September 2008
- Bench
- Pradeep Nandrajog, J.R. Midha
- Case no.
- RFA 374/2001
Judgment
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
J.R. MIDHA, J. September 29, 2008 rk
Case details
Parties and counsel
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI Judgment reserved on : September 26, 2008 % Judgment delivered on : September 29, 2008 + RFA 374/2001 NEW RAMA SEED CORPORATION ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Manish Batra, Advocate VERSUS DARSHAN LAL JAIN ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajiv Aneja, Advocate CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Pradeep Nandrajog Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.R. Midha 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes. 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes. : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. The appellant who was the defendant has suffered a decree in sum of Rs.1,89,000/- together with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the suit till realization as also cost. 2. Briefly stated, case of the respondent was that he was in the business of manufacturing tin boxes and appellant has placed 2 orders for manufacture and supply of tin boxes. The first order was for 6000 tin boxes @ Rs.6.25 per box. The second order was for 600 boxes @ Rs.8/- per box. On the boxes relatable to the first order, the words "Gurdaspur Ki Shaan" had to be printed and on the boxes relatable to the second order "New Rama Seed Corporation" had to be printed. It was stated that in addition to the aforesaid prices it was agreed that the appellant shall pay Rs.21,000/- as cost of scanning, planning and proofing and art work in connection with the 2 orders. 3. Pleading that the appellant lifted only 3,200 boxes pertaining to the first order and 385 boxes pertaining to the second order and that the respondent had executed the entire works; further pleading that even in respect of the boxes which were taken delivery of, Rs.13,580/- was the outstanding payment, suit was filed claiming Rs.1,89,100/- detailed as under: i) Outstanding payment Rs.13,580.00 ii) Cost of Boxes. (Gurdaspur-ki-shaan) 6000 – 3200 = 2800 x 6.25 = 17,500.00 (New Rama Seeds Corpn.) 6000 – 385 = 5615 x 8.00 = 44,920.00 iii) Cost of Scanning/Planning Proofing & art-work Rs.21,000.00 iv) Damages for restoration of goods lying in the godown from 9.6.97 to 8.3.1999. Rs.63,000.00 v) Interest on Rs.97,000/- from 1.7.97 to 28.2.99 @18% p.a. Rs.29,100.00 Total: Rs.1,89,100.00 4. The stand taken in the written statement was that the suit was barred by limitation. It was admitted that the 2 orders as stated in the plaint were placed but in respect of the second order it was disputed that the agreed price was Rs.8/- per box. It was stated that the price agreed was Rs.6.25 per box. It was denied that any amount was agreed to be paid towards printing and scanning charges. It was admitted that 3,200 boxes pertaining to the first order were received and 385 boxes pertaining to the second order were received. It was pleaded that the remaining boxes were not lifted because the same were not up to the specification. 5. Since the learned Trial Judge has found a variance between pleading and proof pertaining to the defence raised in the written statement and evidence led it would be relevant to note the pleadings in the written statement pertaining to the plea that the boxes were not taken delivery of on account of not being up to the specification. The pleading is as under:- "The first lot of boxes both with the inscription "Gurdaspur Ki Shan", numbering 3200 and "New Rama Seed Corporation", numbering 385 was lifted by the defendant since the same being as per specification of the defendant's order while the remaining boxes of both the inscription that of "Gurdaspur Ki Shan" and "New Rama Seed Corporation" were of Sub-standard stuff, using low quality material like thin sheet of tin, sub- standard colour/paint etc. and as such the defendant refused to accept the same. The boxes were not as per specification. The defendant time and again requested the plaintiff to provide the material as per specification while the plaintiff failed to do so. The plaintiff instead of extending the co-operation started threatening the defendant." 6. Since learned
Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.