Back
2015 Supreme(AP) 371
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.
New Vijayalakshmi Oil Extraction and Refinery Private Limited - Appellants
Vs.
Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited - Respondent
C.C.C.A. No. 72 of 1993
Decided On: 10.08.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: S. Sri Ram Reddy
For Respondents/Defendant: D. Linga Rao
Headnote:
Civil Supplies – Indian Contract Act – Section 213 – Appeal - Decreed of suit filed for rendition of accounts and passed a preliminary decree, directing the defendant to render accounts in respect of the transactions concerning to lifting of stocks of RBD Palm oil from the State Trading Corporation of India –between deliveries made by defendant to various retailers along with the release orders, way bills and lorry receipts and upon such rendition of accounts, pay such amounts as may be found due to the plaintiff with till date of payment – Defendant while admitting agreement, opposed the suit contending that it has been appointed as commission agent of plaintiff for transporting storage handling and delivery of palm oil and according to the terms of the agreement, it was responsible for the aforesaid work and the defendant submitted monthly returns in prescribed plaintiff and plaintiff was in position of the same, but the plaintiff with certain oblique motive was pleading as if defendant did not submit monthly returns - Plaintiff complained about non-submission of monthly returns either during the subsistence or after completion of agreement – Held, Defendant in this case is bound to render the accounts to the plaintiff – Defendant did not deny its obligation to render accounts in its written statement contention of defendant is that the necessary records such as allotment orders, delivery orders, statements submitted by it and release orders for distribution were in the custody of plaintiff and therefore, there was no need to file a suit for rendition of accounts and the plaintiff can as well arrive at the amount, if due by the defendant, and file a suit for recovery of argument cannot be accepted for the reason that since inception it is the categorical contention of plaintiff that the defendant has not been submitting the accounts in the prescribed and thereby, it was not able to know clearly as to how much stock of oil was taken by defendant and how much was distributed to the retail dealers and how much was damaged in transit particulars and therefore, it could not correctly assess the amount due and hence plaintiff had to necessarily file the suit for rendition of accounts defendant on one hand contended that it furnished the accounts in the prescribed periodically and on the other hand, contended as if the records were held up with Vigilance authorities and so it could not render the account. Be that it may, the defendant could not establish that during continuance of the agreement, it has already submitted the accounts in statements promptly and regularly only option for the plaintiff is to file a suit for rendition of accounts – Appeal is dismissed.
U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.
1. This appeal is preferred by the defendant aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.08.1992 in O.S. No. 222 of 1985 on the file of Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad whereby and whereunder the learned Judge decreed the plaintiffs suit for rendition of accounts and passed a preliminary decree, directing the defendant to render accounts in respect of the transactions concerning to lifting of stocks of RBD Palmolein/Palm oil from the State Trading Corporation of India, Visakhapatnam/Madras between 14.02.1980 and 13.02.1981 and the deliveries made by defendant to the various retailers along with the release orders, way bills and lorry receipts and upon such rendition of accounts, pay such amounts as may be found due to the plaintiff with interest @ 19.5% p.a. from 13.02.1981 till the date of payment.
2. The factual matrix of the case which led to file the appeal is thus:
a) Plaintiff is the Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (APSCSC) which was formed with the object of procuring essential commodities like oil etc. from the bulk importers like State Trading Corporation (STC) at Visakhapatnam/Madras and arranging for collection of allotted quotas of the State of the said products, their transport from the place of their supply, storage and delivery of the said products to the various retail dealers through the transport contractors appointed by it for such transport and handling of the products. So, the plaintiff was desirous of appointing a commission agent for the transportation, storage, handling and delivery of RBD Palmolein/Palm oil to the retail dealers in Adilabad, Karimnagar, Medak, Nizambad and Warangal in Andhra Pradesh. Accordingly, the plaintiff entered into Ex.A1 Agreement dated 14.02.1980 with the defendant which deals in oil extraction and refinery. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, defendant shall take RBD Palmolein/Palm oil from STC at Visakhapatnam/Madras and to distribute to various places at Adilabad, Karimnagar, Medak, Nizamabad and Warangal and it is also to create minimum storage capacity at the engaged places. The oil is to be delivered to the Fair Price Shops, Super Bazars and other Co-operative institutions as per the release orders issued by the District Managers of APSCSC. As per the terms of contract, the agent shall maintain accounts and submit monthly statements with necessary details by 10th of every succeeding month. The commission agent shall be paid remuneration in respect of the services performed by it under contract at the rate of Rs. 474.51 and 449.31 per metric tonne. The period of contract was for one year from 14.02.1980.
b) The grievance of the plaintiff is that defendant has not complied with terms of agreement and not discharged its obligation particularly, defendant has not submitted the monthly returns in the prescribed forms or produced any accounts for the scrutiny of the plaintiff, so that the plaintiff may be in a position to know what are the quantities received by it, what are the quantities delivered by it and what are the quantities not accounted for. As the contract period was expired on 13.02.1981 and the defendant did not render accounts for the stocks taken and delivered to the retailers, the plaintiff issued a Memo dated 24.07.1981 requiring the defendant to come to the office of plaintiff and render the accounts for settlement. The defendant in its written statement stated that most of the account books were held up with the Vigilance Authorities of the CS Wing and promised to submit the accounts within one week after receipt from the concerned authorities but it failed to do so. The plaintiff subsequently sent similar reminders on different dates but of no use.
Hence, the suit for rendition of accounts.
c) The defendant while admitting Ex.A1 agreement, opposed the suit contending that it has been appointed as commission agent of the plaintiff for transporting, storage, handling and delivery of pal
