Point of Law: appellant/plaintiff became entitled to recovery of the price of the goods sold. In that view of the matter, there was no question of the appellant/plaintiff replacing any goods as they were entitled to the price of the goods actually supplied.

JUDGMENT :

ANIRUDDHA ROY, J.

1. This is an appeal from the impugned judgment and order dated January 10, 2017 passed by the learned Judge whereby and whereunder the Civil Suit C.S. No. 145 of 2006 (Vijai Shree Limited vs. Union of India and Others) was decreed.

2. The scope of the present appeal is very limited. The plaintiff/appellant is principally aggrieved to the extent the impugned judgment was held against it that, it would have to replace 288 numbers of damaged gunny Bales in favour of the sixth defendant at its own cost in terms of the warranty within a period of three months of the date of the impugned judgment and only on fulfilling the same it would be entitled to a decree for payment of money withheld by the sixth defendant. Considering the scope of this appeal, as stated above, the relevant facts are stated hereinafter which are not much disputed by the parties as recorded in the impugned judgment.

PLAINT CASE:

3. The plaintiff carries on business of manufacturing and trading in various jute products having its jute mill situated at Shibpur, Howrah, West Bengal. At the relevant point of time the jute mill was being run and operated under a scheme sanctioned and approved by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short B.I.F.R.)

4. The plaintiff received orders from the office of the second defendant for manufacturing B-Twill Bags as per the government orders. The procedure normally followed is that, various government organizations all over India, to place their respective orders on the fifth defendant, who in turn request the office of the second defendant to place orders on various jute manufacturers. As per the production control orders the jute manufacturers supply the said B-Twill Bags to the designated government organizations.

5. On or about June 2, 2003 the third defendant issued an order that, the plaintiff to produce 780 Bales of B-Twill Bags. Subsequent thereto on June 3, 2003 the Deputy Director of Supply and Disposals, Kolkata issued an order that, the plaintiff to sell the said 780 Bales B-Twill Bags to the Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. the sixth defendant, through the Governor of Punjab. On or about June 3, 2003 the seventh defendant issued the purchase order upon the plaintiff to supply the consignment where the price, specifications, terms and conditions were mentioned.

6. Pursuant and in terms of the said order, the plaintiff manufactured the necessary bags and despatched them by Railway wagon to Sangrur, Punjab under Free on Rail (for short, ‘FOR”) contract. On or about June 23, 2003 the plaintiff informed the sixth defendant that it had despatched 390 Bales to Sangrur, Punjab under the relevant Railway Receipts which were mentioned in the said letter. The said goods and receipts were collected by Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing federation Ltd., the sixth defendant, (for short, the consumer) at Sangrur, Punjab and the goods were duly taken delivery and consumed.

7. The plaintiff then sent Railway receipt, mills specification against the discharge of goods along with the Quality Assurance Certificate to the consignee, the sixth defendant and the bills for the said consignment were sent to the eighth defendant.

8. Sometime in August, 2003 the plaintiff received a letter dated July 18/28, 2003 written by the Acting Director, Quality Assurance to the Chief Manager (Food grains), Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. and with the said letter, a copy of the letter dated July 9, 2003 written by the Chief Manager (Food grains), Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. to the Director of Supplies and Disposals was also attached. It was alleged in the said letter that 390 Bales which were received by the consignee were badly affected by rain and the Railway Authority did not accept any remark on the delivery of the goods. These Bales were lifted by the consignee to avoid further damages and kept separately.