SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1993 Supreme(Del) 619

High Court Of Delhi
DEUTACHE RANCO GMBH - Appellant
Versus
MOHAN MURTI - Respondent
Interim Application 9128 of 1989
Decided On : 10/15/1993

Advocates Appeared:
JAY SAVLA, MADAN BHATIA

Headnote:a) In the instant case, the defendant was residing temporarily and carrying on his business at Delhi – It was found that the defendant had given his address of Delhi in the affidavit – thereforee, the Court at Delhi had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit b) The case questioned whether leave to defend could be granted under Order 37 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, on the basis of counter claim - It was held that the said leave to defend could not be granted –thereforee, the leave was refused

SAT PAL, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,51,50,000. 00 (equivalent of US Dollars 1,000,000) plus interest of Rs. 58,75,620. 00 filed by the plaintiff against the defendant under the provision of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code ). The plaintiff has also claimed interest on the decretal amount at the rateo 18 percent per annum from the date of institution of. the suit till the date of realisaton and costs.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts as mentioned in the plaint are that the defendant who arries on business under the name and style of Nexim and/or Nexim/mohan Murti with offices at 47 Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi and also at 110/111 Pragati Tower, Rajendra Place, New Delhi, entered into contract with the official Russian importer, Technointorg, Moscow on 27th December, 1985 for the supply of certain parts of household air conditioners manufactured by the plaintiff in West Germany and the total value of the contract was Rs. 2,535,000. 00. It is further stated that under the said contract payment for the parts was to be made in Indian rupees to the defendant s account at the Bank of Foreign Trade of the USSR, World Trade Centre Branch, Moscow, USSR. Thereafter, the defendant ordered the parts covered by the said contract from the plaintiff under the written purchase order dated 23rd January, 1986 at the price of Deutsche Marks 591,500. 00 (DM 591,500,00 ). Pursuant to the aforesaid purchase order, the plaintiff is alleged to have supplied the goods and issued invoice dated 4th March, 1986. It is further stated in the plaint that at the request of the defendant, the plaintiff gave to the defendant a credit of DM 84500 and atotal sum of DM 507,000 became due to the plaintiff from the defendant.

( 3 ). It is then alleged in the plaint that the defendant entered into another contract dated 11th April,1986 with Technointorg for the supply of additional parts, total value of which was Rs. 4,560,000. 00 payable in Indian rupees to the defendant s account at the Bank of Foreign Trade of the USSR, World Trade Centre Branch, Moscow and the defendant then again ordered the parts covered by the said contract from the plaintiff under a written purchase order dated 24th April, 1986 at the price of DM 1. 0641000. In pursuance of the said purchase order dated 24th April, 1986, the plaintiff issued invoice dated 13th August, 1986 and supplied the goods mentioned in the invoice. Based on the said invoice, a sum of DM 1,064,000 is alleged to be due from the defendant to the plaintiff. It is then alleged that Technointorg had paid the defendant full invoiced amount of Rs. 7,095,000. 00 for the two orders dated 27th December, 1985 and 11 th April, 1986 mentioned hereinabove and the aid sum was deposited in the defendant s account in the Bank of Foreign Trade for USSR, World Trade Centre, Mosco, USSR.

( 4 ). It is then alleged in the plaint that the defendant had initially agreed to pay the amot due under the said invoice to the plaintiff in Deutsche Marks but subsequently the defendant undertook to pay the amount in US Dollars and specifically he undertook to pay to the plaintiff one million US Dollars (US Dollars 1,000,000) in respect of the amount of DM 1,571,000. It is then alleged that the defendant has neglected/refused to pay to the plaintiff the amount admittedly due despite the plaintiff having shipped the goods to the customers as per the defendant s instructions. It is further stated in the plaint that vide letter dated 10th December, 1987 the defendant undertook to pay the entire sum of l,000,000 US Dollars to the plaintiff in three equal monthly instalments, the first instalment commencing on January 1988 and then the entire amount admittedly due was to bepaid to the plaintiff not later than 15th March. 1988. It is then stated that subsequently the defendant informed the plaintiff that instead of making payment by instalments, he was willing to transfer the full amount

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top