Back
High Court Of Delhi
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
SHELLEX ENTERPRISES - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondents
CS (OS) 379 Of 1990
Decided On : 05/03/2007
SUPPLY - CONTRACT - Indian Partnership act, 1932 - Section 69, Societies Registration Act - [KEYWORD] - [SUBJECT] - [ACT SECTION LIST] - The court discussed the correspondence between the parties, acceptance of terms and conditions, and the performance of obligations in the contract. The court also analyzed the registration of the firm and its implications under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 27,01,213.51 on account of goods supplied and incidental expenses. The defendants denied the submission of quotations for supply of furniture and the authority of defendant no. 3 to enter into a contract with the plaintiffs.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was a contract between the plaintiffs and the Union of India for the supply of furniture. The plaintiffs performed their part of the contract, and the defendants failed to perform their part. The plaintiffs supplied goods as per the orders issued by the defendants to the Hyderabad and Chandigarh Centres. The plaintiffs were entitled to recover 50% of the value of the goods supplied at Hyderabad and the full value of the furniture supplied to Chandigarh, along with expenses incurred.
Issues: The issues included the existence of a contract, performance of obligations, entitlement to relief, interest, and the registration of the firm under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiffs had performed their part of the contract, and the defendants failed to perform their obligations. The court also found that the firm was registered, and the bar under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 did not apply.
Final Decision: A decree was passed in favor of plaintiff nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 against Defendant no. 1 for the recovery of the sum and expenses incurred.
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
( 1 ) THE plaintiffs have filed the present suit against the defendants for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 27,01,213. 51/- on account of goods stated to have been supplied to the defendants and incidental expenses.
( 2 ) PLAINTIFF no. 1 is stated to be a partnership firm of which plaintiffs 2-5 are stated to be partners. It is averred that by a letter number SC/4/87 dated 05. 06. 1987 (Exhibit P 1), the plaintiffs submitted quotations for the supply of furniture to the Navodya Vidyalaya to the defendants.
( 3 ) THE plaintiffs claim that the defendants by their letter no. F. 2178/nv/87 dated 02. 07. 1987 (Ex. P 2) sought acceptance by the plaintiff of the terms and conditions mentioned in the letter. The terms and conditions are stated to have been accepted on behalf of plaintiff no. 1 vide a letter dated 05. 07. 1987 (Ex. P 3 ). The plaint also details the correspondence between the plaintiffs and the defendants. The plaintiffs claim to have supplied the goods as directed by the defendants to the various centres on various dates during the period 07. 03. 1988 to 10. 06. 1988.
( 4 ) IT is averred that vide a letter no. F. N. 2178/nv/87-Sch. I dated 28. 04. 1988 (Exh. P 33), the defendants informed the plaintiffs that due to administrative reasons actual payments for the supplies made will be made only after a month or so with effect from 28. 04. 1988 and bills of the plaintiffs would be accepted only after 10. 05. 1988. Thereafter the defendants vide letter dated 17. 05. 1988 (Exh. P 34), informed the plaintiffs that delay in making payments towards the bills of the plaintiffs was only due to the fact that heads of accounts had not been finalized till then. Further by a letter dated 23. 05. 1988 (Ex. P 35), the defendants inquired the sales tax numbers allotted to the plaintiffs and a certificate as to the transporter utilized for the transport of goods to chandigarh in connection with the payments to be made. This was replied to by the plaintiffs by a letter dated 24. 05. 1988 (Exhibit P 36 ). It is claimed that the defendants vide a letter dated 25. 05. 1988 (Ex. P 37) informed the plaintiffs that their bills would be processed only after the expiry of the said calendar month and the processing of the bills would take 10-15 days.
( 5 ) IT is stated that thereafter, the plaintiffs addressed letters dated 7. 06. 1988; 17. 06. 1988, 20. 06. 1988 and 02. 03. 1989 (Exhibits P 38-41 respectively)to the defendants requesting early payment of the amounts due; submitting rent and labour bills and submitting the bills for supplies made respectively. The plaintiffs claim that the defendants did not reply to these letters and having no other alternative the plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 04. 07. 1989 (Exhibit P 42) claiming a sum of Rs. 25,05,790. 70 along with interest at 21 per cent per annum w. e. f 1. 07. 1989.
( 6 ) THE plaintiffs have thus, filed this suit for the recovery of Rs. 27,01,213. 51 which includes the values of the goods supplied along with the sales tax; rent for godowns at Chandigarh and Hyderabad, Rent for the godown at delhi for 10 months, Loading and uploading for goods supplied to Chandigarh and hyderabad; interest on the value of goods supplied till 31. 01. 1990 and costs of the legal notice. The plaintiffs have also claimed interest at the rate of 21 per cent per annum and costs. In the alternative the plaintiffs have prayed that in case the defendants choose to return the goods supplied at Chandigarh and hyderabad, the plaintiffs are entitled to an amount of Rs. 23,38,263. 81/ -.
( 7 ) IN their written statement, defendant nos. 1 and 2 have averred that the suit is liable to be dismissed as barred under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership act, 1932. Plaintiff no. 1 is pleaded not to be a registered firm under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and Plaintiffs 2-5 are not its registered partners. The said defendants have denied that the plaintiffs have submitted qu
AI
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
