Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mini Pushkarna
M.I.Textiles Pte Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
T.T. Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Mini Pushkarna, J.
1. By way of this Regular First Appeal, the appellant/defendant no. 1/importer, has assailed the judgment and decree dated 22nd March, 2014 (“impugned judgment”), passed by the Additional District Judge-10 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Suit No. 144/2009, titled as “M/s. T.T. Limited Versus M/s. M. I. Textiles Pte. Ltd. and Anr.”. The said suit had been filed by the respondent no. 1/plaintiff/exporter, seeking recovery of Rs.11,80,245/-, along with interest, jointly and severally from the appellant and respondent no. 2/defendant no. 2.
2. The Trial Court, vide the impugned judgment, decreed the suit in favour of the respondent no. 1 and against the appellant, for a sum of Rs. 7,89,840/-, with interest @ 12% per annum from 01st September, 2004 till the penultimate day of filing of the suit. Additionally, further interest was awarded in favour of respondent no. 1 on the aforesaid amount from the date of filing the suit till realization, @ 12% per annum. The suit was, however, dismissed against respondent no. 2.
3. During the pendency of the present appeal, the appellant also filed an application, being CM APPL. 3794/2015 under Order XLI Rule 27, read
The appellant's failure to present evidence does not exempt contractual obligations; timely fulfillment is crucial in commercial contracts, and discrepancies must be addressed effectively and timely ....
The court ruled that the plaintiff's failure to disclose material facts and the express stipulation that time was of the essence justified the invocation of the bank guarantee.
The respondent must prove the existence of a special business practice, and mis-description in the plaint does not necessarily result in non-suit.
The main legal point established is that the Defendant No.1's objections to the documents and invocation of foreign exchange regulations were beyond the scope of the contract, and the Defendant No.2'....
Failure to provide sufficient evidence of delivery and substantiate claims leads to dismissal of recovery suit.
A written contract's terms cannot be contradicted by oral agreements, as established in the Evidence Act's provisions.
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
