The present Second Appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 24.04.2013 passed by learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Bharuch, dismissing Regular Civil Appeal No. 50 of 2007, in turn confirming judgment and decree dated 12.01.2007 passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch in Regular Civil Suit No. 66 of 2006.

1.1 The trial court partly allowed the suit which was for damages on the ground of breach of contract, directing the defendant to pay Rs.83,188/- with interest at the rate of 6% against the total suit claim of Rs.1,47,719/- sought to be recovered with 18% interest. The aggrieved appellant-original defendant has invoked the jurisdiction of this court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

2. The plaintiff-a public limited company-engaged in production and marketing of fertilizers, chemicals etc., instituted a Regular Civil Suit against the defendant-a private limited company which manufactures Rubber Nylon Conveyor Belts etc., for recovery of Rs.1,47,719/-. It was the case in the plaint that the plaintiff placed a purchaser order with the defendant company dated 20.11.1996 for supply of Glimmer License Open Length Rubber Nylon Conveyor Belt of particular size and specification. The defendant accepted the order and informed the plaintiff by letter dated 04.12.1996 that the material as per the purchase order and instructions mentioned therein were ready for delivery. It was the case of the plaintiff that the defendant requested to depute its representative for on-the-spot payment on priority basis and the plaintiff deputed its representative who handed over demand draft of Rs.1,25,188/- bearing No. 287278 dated 06.12.1996 in the name of defendant in full payment of its proforma bill dated 20.11.1996.

3. It was further stated that the defendant addressed letter dated 10.12.1996 to the plaintiff giving guarantee against faulty material and bad workmanship. The guarantee period was 12 months from the date of supply as per the purchase order. The defendant also confirmed that the goods in question would conform requirement of purchase order dated 20.11.1996. The defendant undertook further to indemnify the plaintiff against any manufacturing defect and agreed for replacement of conveyor belts if not found suitable on practicable test as per the letter of indemnity given on 30.11.1996. The certificate of guarantee as well as the test certificate were issued by the defendant in compliance of the terms of the purchase order, stated the plaintiff in the plaint.

3.1 It was next pleaded that when the goods were inspected by the plaintiff’s department concerned, the defects were noticed. It was observed by the user department, as paragraph-7 averred, that while taking out small length of 2 ft., the carcase got detached from the ply indicating poor bonding. It was further stated that it was possible to peel off carcase from ply by hand. As per the case of the plaintiff, therefore, the goods supplied were found to be faulty at the time of practical use and they were not as per the specification given in the purchase order. By fax message dated 07.01.1997 and letter dated 08.01.1997, the defendant was informed; fax message was again sent on 13.02.1997, requesting the defendant to visit the office of plaintiff etc.

3.2 It was the further case of the plaintiff that the goods in question were not matching the specification and there was clear violation of terms and conditions of deal-cum-agreement and the contract of sale. It was contended that therefore, the defendant was under obligation and legally liable to refund the full amount paid towards the price of the goods with interest and take back the goods. The plaintiff gave legal notice dated 22.05.1997 as the defendant did not comply with the instructions, nor replied in the matter.

3.3 On the above factual premise and pleadings, the plaintiff sought to recover Rs.1,25,188/- with interest at the rate of 18% from 06.12.1996. In the Suit pray