Ravender Paul v. Goetze India Ltd

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

J.R. MIDHA, J. September 24, 2008 rk

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI Judgment reserved on : September 17, 2008 % Judgment delivered on : September 24, 2008 + RFA 545/2005 RAVENDER PAUL ..... Appellant Through: Ms.Maldeep Sidhu, Advocate VERSUS GOETZE INDIA LTD. ...... Respondent through: Mr.Jasmeet Singh, 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? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. The appellant has failed in his endeavour to obtain a favourable decree in the suit filed by him. The judgment and decree dismissing his suit is dated 3.3.2005. 2. The case of the plaintiff was that he was residing in Germany and was carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. LUBTECH MAILRHOFLSTR. He stated that his business was to introduce buyers in Germany to manufacturers of leather products in India and take commission if deal materialized and Indian manufacturer sold goods to the Germany buyer. He stated that the respondent appointed him as an agent in 1994 to interact with a German buyer namely Speitch & Wesrsky GMBH & Co. He stated that as per the agreement he was to receive 5% commission on sales affected by the defendant on said German buyer. It was pleaded that in the season concluding in September, 1995 the defendant made sales to the said German Company in sum of Rs.60 lacs and in the second season affected sales worth Rs.80 lacs. Thus, appellant claimed that he was entitled to commission on said sum @5% of the total sale value i.e. Rs.7 lacs. Stating that no payment was made to him hence he was entitled to interest @ 18% per annum, pre-suit interest was calculated @ Rs.2.31 lacs. Suit was filed seeking a decree in sum of Rs.9.31 lacs with pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum. 3. In the written statement filed, respondents stated that in the year 1994 it deputed 2 of its representatives namely, Mr. R. Jayaraman and Mr. Vinod Verma, to visit countries abroad including Germany to obtain business. During the course of visit the plaintiff introduced himself to said persons claiming to be an expert in leather garments and boasted of being in touch with importers of leather garments in Germany. To test the plaintiff it was agreed between the plaintiff and said persons that for the ensuring summer season plaintiff would demonstrate his skills and would prove his worth of procuring orders by obtaining orders for sale to be affected by defendant. It was pleaded that the ensuing period was akin to the plaintiff being a probationer. It was pleaded that no agreement was arrived that the defendant would get any commission to the plaintiff for the first season much less @ 5% on the sales affected. 4. To put it simply the defendant pleaded that by procuring some orders for the ensuing summer months the plaintiff would prove his worth and only then the parties would enter into a contract. 5. On the pleadings of the parties the issue which required to be adjudicated upon was whether the plaintiff was appointed as an agent by the defendant to introduce importers of leather garments in Germany and if yes whether the defendant had agreed to pay commission being 5% of the value of the exports made. 6. To prove his case, the appellant filed several facsimile messages as also photocopies of some facsimile messages. The contents of the documents purport to be communications received by appellant from respondent. 7. The original copies of the facsimile message filed by the appellant are a document marked "B" at page 329 of the Trial Court record; a document marked "C" at page 333; a document marked "D" at page 335; a document marked "F" at page 337 and a document marked "G" at page 341. We note some more original facsimile messages which are not marked at pages 331, 343 and 347 of the Trial Court record. 8. We note that most of the original facsimile messages placed on record are not