CS (OS) NO. 383/2013 AND I.A. NO. 14388/2014

1. This suit for recovery of Rs. 79,53,634/- has been filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant (Rs. 69,53,634/- being the price of air tickets; interest @ 24% per annum from the month of February, 2010 and Rs. 10,00,000/- towards damages) with the allegation that the Defendant approached the Plaintiff for supply of air tickets (for the officers and employees of the Defendant) and a Travel Desk Agreement (TDA) dated 01.04.2009 was entered into between the parties whereby the Plaintiff was required to provide services like renting cars, booking hotels, air tickets etc. to the Defendant. For this purpose, one employee of the Plaintiff was also required to be permanently deputed in the Defendant’s office and whenever need would arise, the Defendant would place orders through the deputed employee. According to the TDA, the Plaintiff was required to raise the invoices in respect of services availed by the Defendant on the same or the next day and also send to the Defendant, consolidated statement of accounts at the end of each month. The Defendant was required to make the payment in respect of the monthly amount on 15th day of each succeeding month failing which, interest @ 24% per annum was liable to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff. It is averred that the business was going on smoothly between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. In November, 2009, the Defendant wanted to send two groups of its employees to Japan for which the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to provide price quotation. The quote provided by the Plaintiff was unconditionally accepted by the Defendant. The Plaintiff booked tickets in Thai and Japan Airways and the Defendant duly availed the services. Invoices were raised. However, the Defendant failed to pay the amount of the tickets of Thai Airways and kept on delaying the matter on one pretext or the other.

2. It is averred that by a letter dated 11.01.2010, the Defendant disputed some invoices issued by the Plaintiff. The Defendant dishonestly stated that the tickets booked on Japan Airways were purchased at discounted rates but were sold to it by the Plaintiff at higher rates without offering the benefit of discount. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff being a member of IATA (International Air Transport Association) was at liberty to purchase the tickets at negotiated rates and neither the TDA nor the industry practice made it mandatory for the Plaintiff to provide the availed discount to the customer i.e. the Defendant. The Plaintiff was only obliged to provide the best price to the Defendant.

3. It is further averred that by a letter dated 13.01.2010, the Defendant without giving any opportunity to the Plaintiff to provide an explanation, unilaterally terminated the TDA on frivolous ground that the representative of the Plaintiff had threatened the officials of the Defendant. The Defendant, for the first time, in a letter dated 25.01.2010 alleged that the Plaintiff had booked different class of tickets than what was requested which is completely false. In February, 2010, the Defendant completely stopped placing orders with the Plaintiff and the TDA expired on 31.03.2001. Hence this suit for recovery.

4. Since the requisite court fee was not filed along with the suit by the Plaintiff, extensions were granted by the Joint Registrar to file the requisite court fee from time to time w.e.f. 26.02.2013. Ultimately, by an order dated 26.03.2014, the Joint Registrar granted two weeks time as a last and final opportunity to pay the court fee and subject to taking steps, summons were ordered to be issued to the Defendant returnable on 15.07.2014. The order dated 26.03.2014 passed by the Joint Registrar is extracted hereunder:

“Steps have not been taken for filing the deficit court fee and PF.

Perusal of the records shows that the case is almost one year old, but plaintiff has not taken steps for depositing the court fee, despite opportuni