Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
KRISHNA RAO, J.
Messrs Bajrang Steel Trading Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. – Plaintiff
Versus
Biplab Das – Defendant
CS No. 14 of 2016
Decided On : 12-06-2024
Contract - Sale of Goods - Limitation Act - Sections 1, 2, 3 - The court interpreted the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act and Limitation Act, emphasizing the necessity of proving the total cost of goods and payments made, leading to the dismissal of the suit due to lack of evidence and limitation.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.55,60,528/- for goods sold to the defendant, who failed to make full payment despite part payments and a dishonored cheque. The defendant disputed the quality of goods and claimed no outstanding dues.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the total cost of goods supplied and the payments made by the defendant, leading to the conclusion that the suit was barred by limitation.
Issues: Whether the suit is maintainable, whether goods were supplied as per requirements, whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the claimed amount, and to what extent the plaintiff is entitled to relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff's failure to provide adequate evidence regarding the total cost of goods and payments made by the defendant resulted in the dismissal of the suit.
Result: The suit is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
KRISHNA RAO, J.
1. The present suit is filed by the plaintiff for a decree of a sum of Rs.55,60,528/-along with interim interest and interest upon judgment at 24% per annum.
2. The plaintiff is carrying on business in manufacturing, dealing and trading in different specifications of iron and steel materials, such as MS Plates/H.R. Coil, HR Sheet/MS Sheet/BP Sheet, MS angles/MS channel etc.
3. The defendant is carrying on business under the name and style of “A to Z Engineering” as a sole proprietor.
4. In or about June, 2009, the defendant approached the plaintiff, for the purpose of obtaining various types of iron and steel materials of diverse quantities and specifications.
5. The parties orally agreed for the supply, delivery and sale of the aforesaid goods on the basis of the following terms and conditions:
(b) The plaintiff would sell, supply, and deliver to the defendant the said goods so ordered by the defendant at the aforesaid factory of the defendant outside the jurisdiction and would thereafter raise and submit its bills/invoices for the price of the said goods sold by the plaintiff to the defendant.
(c) The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the price of the said goods sold, supplied and delivered by the plaintiff together with loading charges and costs along with delivery delivery charges, if incurred by the plaintiff, to the defendant immediately on receipt of bills/invoices, so raised and submitted by the plaintiff to the defendant and/or within the time agreed by and between the parties.
(d) It was agreed that the defendant would not be charged delivery charges if the goods were delivered by their own transport to the defendant from the godown of the plaintiff.
(e) It was agreed that the defendant shall also supply the excise duty and VAT (Value Added Tax) as applicable from time to time on the said goods to be sold and delivered to the defendant by the plaintiff.
(f) Interest would be charged at the agreed rate of 24% per annum if the bill/invoice is not paid by the defendant to the plaintiff on presentation of the same or on the agreed due date as the case may be.
(g) The accounts between the parties shall be current and continuous.
(h) The payment shall be made by the defendant at the aforesaid office of the plaintiff.
(i) All dealing and transactions by and between the parties shall be subject to Kolkata jurisdiction only.
6. According to the terms and conditions of the contract entered into by and between the parties, the defendant from time to time placed various orders upon the plaintiff for supply of various quantities and qualities of the goods at the agreed rates during the period from 5th June, 2009 to 22nd November, 2010 and such delivery of the goods were accepted by the defendant without any demur or protest with regard to quality and/or any other issues related to the delivered goods.
7. The plaintiff raised bills/invoices in accordance with the goods that were sold and supplied to the defendant.
8. The defendant had made part payment towards the said goods sold and delivered and the defendant also issued a cheque of Rs.5,00,000/- bearing the Cheque No. ‘603084’ on 13th October, 2010 but the said cheque was dishonoured with the endorsement “Funds Insufficient.”
9. The defendant thereafter failed and neglected to make further payment of the dues arising out of the goods that were sold and supplied to the defendant by the plaintiff in accordance with the agreed terms and conditions.
10. The plaintiff apart from filing the instant suit had also initiated proceedings under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code in the Court of the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta being Case No. C/9359 of 2014 on 10th March, 201
The court's decision emphasized the importance of honoring contractual obligations and the legal right to recover outstanding payments for goods supplied.
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 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.
In a suit based on invoices, the invoices must be treated as a written contract. If the Defendant raises no genuine triable issues or the defense is frivolous, the Plaintiff shall be entitled to judg....
The court emphasized that disputed documents and agreements raised triable issues that required evidence and could not be decided summarily.
Court upheld the trial court's ruling on limitation and interest, emphasizing ongoing commercial transactions while invalidating the claim for hand loan.
Admissions made by a party can serve as substantive evidence, allowing the court to grant a decree in the absence of a defense.
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
