ARUN KUMAR BHATTACHARYA
CALICUT ENGINEERING WORKS (P) LTD. – Appellant
Versus
BATLIBOI LTD. – Respondent
( 1 ) THIS is a suit for recovery of the price of machine together with interest amounting to Rs. 12,59,354. 13 p. and loss of profit to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/ -.
( 2 ) A thumbnail sketch of the plaintiff's case is that in or about March, 1977 it was agreed between the plaintiff and defendant which sells the products of Strojimport of Czechoslovakia in India, that the defendant would sell and deliver to the plaintiff a Gear Hobbing Machine Model of-16 manufactured by M/s. ZPS Gottwaldov, Praha, Czechoslovakia for a price of Rs. 8,24,474. 67 p. on terms and conditions set forth in the order dated 26. 03. 77 of the plaintiff and accepted by the defendant. At the time of entering into the said reagreement, the plaintiff duly intimated the defendant that the machine would be put to immediate use for meeting the ever-increasing demand of the plaintiff's products in the market thereby leading to higher profit. In terms of the agreement the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 8,24,474. 67 p. by three cheques dated 02. 03. 77 for Rs. 50,000/-, dated 29. 03. 77 for Rs. 7,24,474. 67 p, and dated 30. 03. 77 for Rs. 50,000/-, all drawn on Dena Bank, Park Stre
S.H. Joshi and Co. v. V.M. Ismail
M/s. Venkateswara Minerals v. Jugalkishore Chiranjitlal
Bengal Nagpur Railway Company Ltd. v. Ruttanji Ramji
Sovintorg (India) Ltd. v. State Bank of India, New Delhi
REFERRED TO : Kumaraswami v. Karuppuswami
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.