The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the appellants/defendants to pay for the goods received, the territorial jurisdiction of the courts at Delhi, and the non-compliance with the agreement by the appellants/defendants.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

C.M. No. 53714/2018 (for exemption)

1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

C.M. stands disposed of.

C.M. No. 53713/2018 (for condonation of delay)

2. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 32 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.

C.M. stands disposed of.

RFA No. 1030/2018 and C.M. Nos. 53711/2018 (under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC) & 53712/2018 (stay)

3. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendants in the suit impugning the Judgment of the trial court dated 31.07.2018 by which the trial court has decreed the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for an amount of Rs. 66,81,330/- along with interest at 12% per annum on account of the appellants/defendants having failed to pay for the goods, being copper wire bars which were sold by the respondent/plaintiff to the appellants/defendants.

4. The facts of the case are that the subject suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 80,53,777/- or, in the alternative, for the respondent/plaintiff getting back the goods supplied to the appellants/defendants under the subject Invoices bearing nos. 11708 and 11708-A. The respondent/plaintiff is a corporation based in the State of Texas, United States of America and supplied copper wire bars to the appellants/defendants under the two aforesaid invoices totalling to 108.516 MT. Value of each of the two invoices was US$ 71,077.98. The respondent/plaintiff pleaded that the appellants/defendants claimed that the copper wire bars pertaining to container nos. TOLU 2558518 and TOLU 261782 for 54.258 MT under Invoice No. 11708-A was destuffed in the godown of the appellants/defendants in Gulabi Bagh at Delhi and with respect to 54.258 MT of copper wire bars pertaining to container No. TOLU 2285701 and TOLU 3230431 under Invoice No. 11708 were detained/held by the Customs Authorities/Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). The appellants/defendants were to make payment within 90 days, however they failed to do so, and on extension of time upto 180 days, the appellants/defendants again failed to make the requisite payment. The appellants/defendants claimed that for certain reasons, the Customs Authorities/DRI had seized the goods, whereas some goods had been released to the appellants/defendants on superdari, however, some goods had not been released. The appellants/defendants pleaded difficulty to clear the bills on account of weak financial position and assured to return the goods back to the respondent/plaintiff. The appellants/defendants, however, could neither pay the amount of the goods supplied nor return the goods, and instead were trying to sell the goods in the open market. Therefore, the subject suit was filed.

5. The appellants/defendants originally contested the suit by filing written statement, but they did not lead any evidence in support of their case. The basic defence of the appellants/defendants was that the courts at Delhi had no territorial jurisdiction and the goods which were supplied were not as per the agreement between the parties. It was also pleaded that there was no liability of the appellants/defendants and the liability, if any, was of the Customs Authorities/DRI.

6. The following issues were framed in the suit:-

“(1) Whether this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and determine the present suit? OPD.

(2) Whether the goods supplied by the plaintiff to defendant were not in accordance with the agreement between the parties? OPD.

(3) If issues 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff, what amount is the plaintiff entitled to? OPP

(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest, if so, at what rate, on what amount and for which period? OPP.

(5) Relief?”

7. Evidence was first to be led on behalf of the appellants/defendants but despite repeated opportunities, since evidence was not led, the right of the appellants/defendants to lead evidence was closed vide Order dated 02.01.2006 and this order has become f