The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court considered the merits of the claimant's claim after due consideration of the evidence instead of dispensing with the consideration and giving a decree merely upon default of the appearance of the defendant.

1. The claimant made two separate claims against two defendants Bregawn Jersey Ltd. (Bregawn) and Neville Tuli (Tuli) under the aforesaid folio numbers. The claims were prosecuted together. They have beenadjudicated together. The claim against Bregawn was as a contracting party. The claim against Tuli, the director of Bregawn, was as a guarantor to the transaction. The claims were adjudicated under the judgment dated 25.03.2010 which culminated in the order/decree of payment dated 26.03.2010 and the final adjudication of the claim of damages under the judgment/order dated 04.10.2010.

2. The claims were made under a certain purchase agency agreement and a purchase agreement under which certain personal guarantee was given by the respondent Tuli. Upon the service of the claim both the aforesaid parties were represented. Later their solicitor served notice that they would not be acting for them. Despite the notice of the hearing the respondent did not attend it. The claim of the claimant was, therefore, heard in the absence of the defendants (the respondent being one of the defendants) though with notice to them. The judgment dated 25.03.2010 notes the facts and considers the two claims under the agreement of the claimant to provide finance for obtaining certain artwork of Indian, Persian and Islamic arts. The claim was in substance for the return of finance. The learned Judge has set out the initial amount of the loan and the relevant part of the purchasing agency agreement, the personal guarantee and the amendment agreement in the judgment. The judgment further notes the facts that transpired for which the finance was given and the notice issued upon the failure to invoice the funds. The learned Judge has noted the reply of the defendant which accepted and admitted the full title of the claimant to have remained incomplete in respect of unpaid artwork by citing the relevant portion of the reply justifying on the amount that remained unpaid. The learned Judge has observed that the letter did not dispute that the sums were advanced or the fact that the fund was not invoiced as promised. The learned Judge has arrived at the “inescapable” conclusion about the advances made for the artwork which were not passed on to the auctioneers and because of which the auctioneers could not release the artworks resulting in they remaining “unpaid”.

3. The judgment further notes the denial of the claim. The learned Judge has rejected the claimant's contention with regard to the entire of the artworks required to be purchased by the respondent. The learned Judge has himself noticed that some of the artworks were delivered to the claimant and has, therefore, concluded that the then present market value of the artwork would be significantly less than the price put by the claimant in doing so. The learned Judge has considered the witness statement relied upon by the claimant filed as per the rules of that Court and has considered each of the aspects of the claim separately and independently, rejecting some and accepting some of them.

4. The price of the artwork as put by the claimant was rejected. The claim of repayment of the loan of $1.2 million also came to be rejected with reasons as having been cancelled by mutual agreement. However the learned Judge accepted the breach of the purchasing agency agreement by the contracting party Bregawn by failure to apply the funds advanced by claimant for the purchase of the artwork and consequently to provide the “purchasing service”. The learned Judge, therefore, concluded that the claimant was thereby unabled to sell the artworks and recover the amount and was hence entitled to a remedy in damages.

5. The indemnity given pursuant to purchase agency agreement was also allowed with reasons as it was seen that the respondent Bregawn has not purchased the artwork in the name of the claimant or from the claimant despite sufficient written demand under letter dated 17.09.2009.

With regard to the breach of the fi