Back
2000 Supreme(HP) 46
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
R.L.KHURANA
MOHAN MEAKIN LTD. - Appellant
Versus
SURJIT BEVERAGES PVT.LTD. - Respondent
Civil Suit No.46 of 1992
Decided On : 03/20/2000
Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate with Mr. P.N. Sharma, Advocate, for the Plaintiff; Mr. Bhupender Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate, for the Defendant.
Headnote:RECOVERY SUIT - Recovery Suit - Interest - Total amount payable to defendant company by plaintiff-company has not been accounted for by plaintiff company - If such amount is accounted for and adjusted against amount found due from defendant-company - Then nothing would remains due - Since as against total claim against defendant-company, plaintiff Company has the amount in its hand for adjusting against outstanding amount - He/d, after adjusting amount of security deposit and that of credit note nothing is due from defendant-Company - Hence, question of interest does not arise - Suit dismissed.
RECOVERY SUIT - Recovery Suit - Whether there was a mutual. open and current account between parties - Only plaintiff has been making deliveries of goods to defendants and price thereof was being paid by defendants from time to time either in full or partiat discharge of obligations - No independent obligation on plaintiff in favour of defendants in the accounts being maintained by plaintiff, price of goods supplied were being debited and monies received from time to time from defendants towards price of goods supplied - Where being credited - The transactions between parties were thus pure and simple that of sale of goods - There has been no mutuality of obligations - Cannot be said that there has been a mutual, open and current account between parties - Companies Act, 1956.
R.L. Khurana, J.—The plaintiff-company has filed the present suit against the defendant-company for the recovery of Rs. 34,89,664.57 paise on the following averments :
2. The plaintiff-company is a Public Limited Company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, and is engaged in the manufacture and sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (for short : IMFL) and Beer etc. having various units and sale outlets all over the country. The registered office of the company is in District Solan.
3. The defendant-company is a private limited company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Mohali, District Ropar (Punjab) and a branch office at Delhi.
4. The defendant-company has been making purchases of IMFL and Beer from the plaintiff from time to time. The supplies were made to the defendant-company by the plaintiff-company from 19.6.1987 to 1.3.1991 from its. wholesale outlet at Ludhiana and from November 1989 to November 1990 from its wholesale outlet at Bombay. The plaintiff-company is maintaining a mutual current and open account in its books in the name of defendant-company in which all supplies made from time to time to the defendant-company and payments received from it from time to time were being duly accounted for. As per such account of sum of Rs. 28,39,241.72 paise is due from the defendant-company in respect of the supplies of IMFL and Beer made from its Ludhiana wholesale outlet during the period 19.6.1987 to 1.3.1991. Another sum of Rs. 1,18,098.14 paise is due in respect of the supplies of IMFL and Beer made to the defendant-company during the period 22.11.1989 to 23.11.1990 from Bombay wholesale outlet. Since the defendant failed to pay the amount in terms of the conditions attached to the sales, the plaintiff-company is entitled to interest on the outstanding amount at the rate of 18% per annum amounting to Rs. 5,32,321.71 paise. The total sum due towards principal and interest comes to Rs. 34,89664.57 paise.
5. The defendant-company while resisting the suit, admitted the supplies of IMFL and Beer made to it by the plaintiff-company from time to time. The outstanding amount, as claimed by the plaintiff-company was denied. Maintenance of mutual, open and current account was also denied. It was pleaded that nothing is due to the plaintiff-company and that inspite of repeated demands having been made, the plaintiff-company has failed to supply a complete statement of account. The accounts in the ledger are not correct and have been manipulated. It was further pleaded that the amount of security deposit to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- and another sum of Rs. 18,39,241.72 paise, being the value of goods returned have not been adjusted and accounted for by the plaintiff-company. The defendant company also raised objections as to the territorial jurisdiction of this court and that the suit has not been filed by a duly authorised and competent person.
6. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 24.3.1994:—
1. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? OPD._
2. Whether Shri H.N. Handa is competent to file the suit? OPP.
3. Whether there was mutual current and running account with the defendant, if so, its effect? OPP.
4. Whether defendants are liable for adjustment of Rs. 10,00,000/ as alleged? OPD.
5. Whether plaintiff owes Rs. 22,88,798/- as alleged? OPD.
6. Whether there is no cause of action for plaintiff to file the suit as alleged? OPD.
7. To what amount the plaintiff is entitled to? OPP.
8. To what rate of interest or any interest the plaintiff is entitled to? OPP.
9. Relief.
7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. My findings on the above issues are as under:— Issue No. 1.
8. Admittedly, the defendant-company neither resides nor works for gain within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. It is also not disputed that all the supplies were made by the plaintiff-compa
