The court emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of commercial cases and the deemed admission of facts when defendants fail to respond.

Manmohan, J.

I.A. 2572 of 2018

1. Present application has been filed under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC read with Order XIII-A of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015. It is pertinent to mention that the present suit has been filed for recovery of Rs.1,27,37,263/- along with pendent lite and future interest at 18% per annum. The prayer clause in the present suit is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“i Pass a decree for a sum of Rs.1,27,37,263/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty Seven Lacs Thirty Seven Thousand Two Hundred and sixty Three) against both the defendants.

ii. Pendente lite & future interest @ 18% p.a. till payment and/or realization, may be awarded in favor of the plaintiff.

iii. All cost of this suit against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff.

iv. Pass such any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit & proper in the facts & circumstances of the case in favour of the Plaintiff –Bank and against the Defendants.”

2. Since none appeared for the defendants, despite service by way of publication, they were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 12th December, 2017.

3. The contentions and submissions advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff are as under:-

i. The plaintiff is a registered society and an Apex Level Cooperative organization under Govt. of NCT of Delhi.

ii. The defendant No. 1 is a partnership firm and defendant no. 2 is the authorized signatory and one of the partners of the defendant no. 1 firm. The defendants are dealers, commission agents, government suppliers and are engaged in the business of import and export of pulses, food grains, kirana and dry fruits.

iii. The plaintiff had made an inquiry from various dealers, for procurement of various items for onward supply to the Army Purchase Organization, paramilitary and police organizations and other Government departments.

iv. On 20th March, 1990, the defendant no. 1 sent a proposal to the plaintiff for registration as the sole supplier of the required items for the abovementioned organizations. After due compliance, the defendant no. 1 was taken as the registered supplier of the plaintiff.

v. On 15th June, 1990 the plaintiff and the defendants entered into an agreement for the supply of pulses. The agreement was valid for a period of two years and on its expiry it was renewed through letter dated 16th June, 1992 for one year further.

vi. After renewal, the plaintiff entered into a contract dated 23rd March, 1993, with the Army Purchase Organization, for the supply of 3375 MTS of Dal Chana at the rate Rs. 944/- per Qtls. The contract for supply of Dal Chana was entered into by the plaintiff on the assurances of comfortable and undisturbed supply by the defendants as per the terms and conditions of the agreement.

vii. However, the defendants defaulted in the supply schedule because of which a request was made to the Army Purchase Organization for extending the date of supply. The request was accepted by the Army Purchase Organization and it extended the date of supply up to 31st August, 1993. The defendants once again failed to supply and due to non-supply of Dal Channa, the plaintiff could not honour the contract. This resulted in cancellation of the supply order by the Army Purchase Organization on 28th September, 1993. Due to previous default, the plaintiff could not apply for fresh tender floated by the Army Purchase Organization.

viii. On 06th March, 1997, Sh. Ram Bahadur Addl. Legal Advisor, Government of India, Ministry of Law was appointed as the sole arbitrator to arbitrate on the assessment of damages for the non-supply of goods to the Army Purchase Organization and the arbitration was initiated. The arbitration matter was defended at the behest, cost and risk of the defendants, as the defendant no. 2 had submitted an indemnity bond dated 03rd November, 1995, giving an undertaking to indemnify the plaintiff for any loss or damage on account of non-execution of contract with the Army Purchas