Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Krishna Rao, J.
Antarctica Limited - Appellant
Vs.
Westco International Fze - Respondent
CS 11 of 2020
Decided On : 03-08-2023
Breach of Contract - Sale of Goods - Non-Payment for Goods Delivered - Plaintiff's Suit for Recovery of Payment - Documents Submitted as Proof of Shipment and Delivery - Defendant's Failure to Pay Despite Receiving Goods - Court's Decree in Favor of Plaintiff.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a company, filed a suit against the defendant, a foreign entity, seeking payment for goods supplied under two purchase orders. The plaintiff had shipped the goods from Kolkata port and delivered them to the defendant's banker in the UAE. The plaintiff submitted documents, including packing lists, invoices, shipping bills, and bills of exchange, as proof of shipment and delivery.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendant had received the goods but failed to pay the plaintiff despite repeated requests. The court held that the plaintiff had proved the existence of a contract between the parties and the defendant's breach of the contract by failing to pay for the goods.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff had supplied the goods to the defendant as per the purchase orders. 2. Whether the defendant had received the goods but failed to pay for them. 3. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to payment for the goods supplied.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the documentary evidence submitted by the plaintiff, including purchase orders, invoices, shipping bills, and bills of exchange, to establish the existence of a contract between the parties and the defendant's receipt of the goods. The court also considered the plaintiff's evidence that it had sent the goods to the defendant's banker in the UAE and that the defendant had failed to pay for the goods despite receiving them.
Final Decision: The court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, granting a decree for the total sum of US $66414.30 along with interest @ 18% per annum from 1st December 2019 till the date of realization of the said amount.
JUDGMENT :
Krishna Rao, J.
1. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff being CS No. 11 of 2020 praying for a Decree of US $66414.30 or its equivalent Indian Rupee on the date of payment and/or realization.
2. The defendant has approached the plaintiff company for supply of various kinds and qualities of tea packing paper board boxes by two purchase orders dated 21st December, 2017 and 15th March, 2018.
3. Pursuant to the said orders and in terms of the purchases made by the defendant, the plaintiff got the said boxes manufactured and shipped the goods in two consignments from Kolkata port and delivered the order to Emirates NBD Bank, Mamazer Branch, U.A.E., being the banker of the defendant by vessels SSL Chennai U-88 and SSL Kolkata U-32 respectively. The plaintiff had thereafter sent the required documents for shipment through United Bank of India, 16, Old Court House Street, Kolkata – 700001 to the Banker of the defendant, Emirates NBD Bank, Mamazer Branch, U.A.E.. The list of such documents sent are mentioned herein below:-
(i) Packing list duly endorsed by the Collector of Customs, Kolkata
(ii) Invoice No. 012669 dated 22nd March, 2018
(iii) Export Declaration Form no. S18E00075211
(iv) Shipping bill no. 400185 dated 22nd March, 2018 for export of duty free goods.
(v) Copy of Purchase order no. 001/ANTA/2017 dated 21st December, 2017
(vi) Certificate of Origin dated 6th April. 2018
(vii) Insurance Cover Note
(viii) Original Bill of Lading No. TSVINCCU1804704 dated 6th April, 2018
(ix) A bill of Exchange no. 04201801 dated 6th April, 2018 for US $25736 drawn by the plaintiff.
Shipment No. 2
(i) Packing list duly endorsed by the Collector of Customs, Kolkata
(ii) Invoice No. 012706 dated 10th May, 2018
(iii) Export Declaration Form No. S18E00120901
(iv) Shipping bill No. 4001900 dated 10th May, 2018 for export of duty free goods.
(v) Copy of Purchase Order No. 001/ANTA/2018 dated 15th March, 2018
(vi) Certificate of Origin dated 28th May, 2018
(vii) Insurance cover note.
(viii) Origin Bill Of Lading No. TSVINCCU1805785 dated 26th May, 2018
(ix) A Bill of Exchange No. 05281802 dated 28th May, 2018 for US $25620.30 drawn by the plaintiff.”
4. The defendant had accepted two Bills of Exchange on 16th April, 2018 and on 16th June, 2018 respectively and the defendant has duly accepted the delivery of the exported goods.
5. On receipt of such goods and Bill of Exchange dated 16.04.2018 and 16.06.2018, the defendant had failed, neglected and/or refused to honour the same and had also failed to pay the promised sum as per the Purchase Orders made by the defendant to the plaintiff.
6. By a letter dated 22nd July, 2019, the plaintiff has called upon the defendant to pay the due sum along with the interest which is at the rate of 18% per annum from the due dates of the said Bills of Exchange until payment but inspite of receipt of the notice, neither the defendant sent any reply nor had made the payments.
7. Even after receipt of Writ of Summons, the defendants failed to appear in the suit and accordingly on receipt of report from the office, by an order dated 6th June, 2022, this Court has fixed matter in the list as “Undefended Suit”.
8. To prove the case, the plaintiff has examined the Director of the plaintiff company, as witness in the present suit. During the evidence, the plaintiff has exhibited all together 10 documents as “Exhibit A to Exhibit J”.
9. Exhibit-A evidently shows that there has been purchase orders made by the defendant via e-mail which was duly acknowledged and accepted by the plaintiff through e-mail dated 21st December, 2017.
10. From Exhibit-B it appears that mode of payment which was to be made against acceptance of the delivery within 60 days from the bill of lading.
11. As per the evidence of P.W. 1, the plaintiff used to send documents through their Bank which is the United Bank of India now known as Punjab National Bank and to that the consignee i.e. the Emirates NBD Bank which is the bank for the defendant.
12.
A party to a contract is liable for breach of contract if it fails to perform its obligations under the contract, and the other party suffers damages as a result.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the plaintiff to a decree for the recovery of the debt along with interest under the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the defendants to pay interest on delayed payment as per the terms of UCP-600, specifically citing Article 14(6) and Article 16(ii....
The court's decision emphasized the importance of honoring contractual obligations and the legal right to recover outstanding payments for goods supplied.
The respondent must prove the existence of a special business practice, and mis-description in the plaint does not necessarily result in non-suit.
The plaintiff successfully proved the delivery of goods and the defendant's liability for unpaid dues, entitling the plaintiff to recover the amount with interest.
Money suit – Demand raised against supply of goods has to be allowed.
A party who breaches a contract is liable to the other party for damages resulting from the breach.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
