Back
2003 Supreme(Mad) 934
High Court of Judicature at Madras
N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN & AR. RAMALINGAM
Ashwin Rajesh & Co., by its Proprietrix, Radha Vanvaria
Versus
Saravana Fabrics, by its Proprietor, N. Manoharan
A.S. No. 686 of 1989 and C.M.P. No. 9027 of 1989
Decided On :Decided On : 02-07-2003
For the Appellant:T.P. Sankaran, Advocate.
For the Respondent:A.K. Kumaraswamy, Advocate.
The determination of the agreed time for delivery and the interpretation of contractual documents played a crucial role in resolving the dispute.
Headnote:
Time of Delivery - Contract Dispute - Ex. A1, Ex. B3 - 19.3.1986 - The court discussed the discrepancies in the delivery date and concluded that the ultimate date of delivery agreed was 19.3.1986. The court also addressed the issue of territorial jurisdiction and held that the contract was entered into at Erode, not Madras.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a textile manufacturer, supplied goods to the defendant as per an order. The defendant alleged that the goods were not supplied within the agreed date and refused to accept them, leading to a dispute over payment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the ultimate date of delivery agreed was 19.3.1986 and upheld the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, confirming the defendant's liability to pay the suit amount.
Issues: The key issues were the agreed time for delivery of the goods and the correctness of the Trial Court's judgment and decree.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined the delivery date based on the discrepancies in the documents and addressed the question of territorial jurisdiction, holding that the contract was entered into at Erode.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court were confirmed.
AR. RAMALINGAM, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by the defendant against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Sub Court, Erode in O.S. No. 256 of 1986 wherein decree has been passed for Rs. 35,745.10.
2. The plaint allegations in brief are as follows:—
The plaintiff viz., Sri Saravana Fabrics by its proprietor Manoharan is doing business in manufacture of textiles at Erode. The defendant viz., Ashwin Rajesh and Company by its proprietrix Smt. Radha Vanvaria is also doing business in textiles and exports at Madras. The defendant placed order with the plaintiff for supply of some specified textile goods on 6.2.1986. The said order was placed and agreed between the parties at Erode. The goods were agreed to be supplied on or before 19.3.1986. As per the understanding, the plaintiff supplied the goods to the defendant on various dates. But, the defendant has taken a stand as if the goods were not supplied within the agreed date viz., 9.3.1986, but, in fact, the agreed date was only 19.3.1986 and the order was also placed and agreed only at Erode. Inspite of demand made orally and through letters and notice through the counsel, the defendant has sent a reply with false allegations and thereby the defendant is liable to pay the suit amount. Hence the suit.
3. Brief allegations in the written statement are as follows:—
It is true that the defendant placed order on 6.2.1986 for supply of textile goods for the purpose of exporting. But, the goods were agreed to be supplied on or before 9.3.1986 and the time is the essence of the contract. But, the plaintiff did not supply the goods within the agreed date viz., 9.3.1986. In fact, the plaintiff has altered the said date 9.3.1986 as that of 19.3.1986 for his convenience and advantage. It is only the plaintiff who failed to perform his part of the agreement as agreed between the parties. Therefore, the defendant is not liable to accept the goods or to pay the price of the same as demanded by the plaintiff. Of course, the defendant took samples out of the goods sent by the plaintiff with the intention of selling out the goods to third parties on humanitarian grounds. The defendant was not able to sell the goods to third parties. Consequently, the defendant sent back all the goods to the plaintiff through Royal Transport Company on 7.4.1996 and thereby the plaintiff, instead of taking back from the said lorry transport, has filed the suit against the defendant by claiming the suit amount without any basis. Accordingly, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
4. After having considered the pleadings of either side, the Trial Court has framed necessary issues and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on either side, has come to the conclusion that the defendant is liable to pay the suit amount and thereby decreed the suit. Aggrieved against such judgment and decree, the defendant has preferred this appeal.
5. Points for consideration are:—
i) Whether the time for delivery of the goods agreed between the parties was till 9.3.1986 or 19.3.1986; and
(ii) whether the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court viz., the I Additional Sub Court is correct and justified.
6. On the plaintiffs side, the proprietor of the plaintiff company viz., Manoharan has been examined and two other witnesses have been examined as P.Ws. 2 and 3 apart from marking five documents as Exs. A1 to A5. On the side of the defendant, one Gururajan, an employee of the defendant company has been examined as DW1 apart from marking four documents as Exs. B1 to B4.
7. The specific evidence of the plaintiff as PW1 is to the effect that the order was made and agreed between the parties only at Erode and the original of the said order has been marked as Ex. A1 and the alleged copy of Ex. A1 is marked as Ex. B3 on the side of the defendant. On perusal of Ex. A1, it is clear that the same has been prepared on 6.2.1986 and the ultimate delivery date has been fixed as 19.3.1986 and the plaintiff himself has
