SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Mad) 1411

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
M/s. Trimex Industries Pvt Limited., Rep. by its Vice President Legal, S. Sudhakaram – Appellant
Versus
M/s. Ind Barath Thermal Power Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Chennai – Respondent
C.S. No. 303 of 2017 & O.A. No. 1110 of 2017 & A. Nos. 3843 of 2017, 4499, 6206 of 2018 & 3962 of 2019
Decided on : 06-08-2021

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Abdul Hameed for M/s. A.A.V. Partners, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Anirudh Krishnan, Advocate.

Headnote:

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VII Rule 1 - Insolvency Bankruptcy Code Rules - Commercial Dispute - Non payment of consideration - Coal imported from UAE – Suit for recovery of amount - Plaintiff Company, is carrying on business of trading in iron ore, coal, barite, bentonite and other minerals. - Whether plaintiff is entitled to file and maintain present suit on account of having initiating Corporate Insolvency Proceedings before National Company Law Tribunal under Insolvency Bankruptcy Code Rules – Whether Goods(Coal) supplied by plaintiff to defendant under Purchase Order is in terms of specifications contained therein - Whether plaintiff is entitled to a sum of with interest at rate of 18% on principal sum - Whether it can be said that Oriental Government Security Life Assurance Co. Ltd., carries on business in Madras - question whether Oriental Government Security Life Assurance Co. Ltd., carries on business in Madras - Held, there is no proceedings pending before NCLT, Hyderabad, in respect of this claim – There is a clear evidence to show that two consignments amount has been delivered to defendant at tuticorin in Port in two different vessels - There is no evidence before this Court to accept the allegation of the defendant about quality of Coal supplied by plaintiff - according to the legal notice (Ex.P.10), they have demanded only 10.50% interest. Therefore, if Memorandum of Understanding is to be relied, where both the parties have signed and accepted the dues, as on that date was only Rs.22,17,05,264/-, for this amount, the plaintiff is entitled only for 10.50% interest as claimed under this legal notice - plaintiff is entitled for a money decree – Cs allowed

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Suit is filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C.

(a). Directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.28,46,18,581/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Crores Forty Six Lakhs Eighteen Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty One only) as on 18.04.2017 with interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the Principal sum of Rs.22,17,05,264/- from the date of Plaint till the day of payment in full to the plaintiff.

(b). The costs;)

1. The suit is for recovery of Rs.28,46,18,581/- as on 18.04.2017 with interest at the rate of 18% from the date of plaint till the date of payment for the principal sum of Rs.22,17,05,264/- and costs.

2. The subject suit relates to non payment of consideration for the coal imported from UAE and delivered to the defendant hence determined as Commercial Dispute.

3. The case of the plaintiff:-

    (i). The plaintiff Company, is carrying on the business of trading in iron ore, coal, barite, bentonite and other minerals. The defendant envincing interest in buying Non Coking Steam Coal of Indonesian Origin, (herein after referred as ‘goods’) approached the plaintiff and placed purchase order dated 25.02.2015 for 51000 MTs of coal and 03.07.2015 for 25000 MTs of coal. The plaintiff and defendant entered into an High Seas Sale (HSS) Agreement on 20.03.2015 and 04.08.2015, for selling 55687 MT & 23932 MT of goods respectively at the price of Rs.2,908.58 per MT and Rs.2,725/- MT respectively on terms and conditions contained therein. The plaintiff raised invoice on 20.03.2015 & 04.08.2015 for 55687 MTS & 23932 MT of coal respectively for a total price of Rs.15,57,48,672/- & Rs.6,59,56,592/- respectively. As per the terms of the HSS agreement and purchase order, the payment for the ‘goods’ sold is to be made by RTGS or LC on 90 days usance basis on the 60th day from the date of completion of the vessel discharge at the Tuticorin port and interest shall be levied for the delay beyond 60 days.

(ii). The vessels i.e., “MV Fanoula and MV Marianna” completely discharged the ‘goods’ on 30.03.2015 and 17.08.2015. The payment for the ‘goods’ supplied by the plaintiff fell due on 30.05.2015 & 17.10.2015 within the said period, the defendant failed to pay the dues in full. After giving credit to various payments made by the defendant, a sum of Rs.22,17,05,264/- was due and payable to the plaintiff by the defendant. To the legal notice dated 03.09.2016 issued by the plaintiff, the defendant confirmed their liability of Rs.22,17,05,264/- towards the principle as on 15.09.2016. Thereafter, the defendant again issued a letter dated 21.09.2016 and promised to pay the due once it realises the huge arrears from TANGEDCO through “TNERC”.

4. In the meeting held at the Office of the Defendant in Chennai, the defendant undertook to settle the dues before January-2017. However, the defendant failed to keep up their promise. “TANGEDCO” owes more than Rs.60 crores to the defendant. As on 18.04.2017, the balance outstanding due payable by the defendant to the plaintiff is Rs.22,17,05,264/- towards principal and Rs.6,29,13,317/- towards interest. The cause of action for the suit arose within the jurisdiction of this Court, when the defendant placed the purchase order at the plaintiff’s Office at Chennai. When HSS agreement entered at Chennai and the correspondence between the parties emanated within Chennai.

5. The case of the defendant:-

    The defendant is a Special Purpose Vehicle, which owns a power generation station at Swaminatham Village, Tuticorin primarily for the purpose of generating electricity for the use of its shareholders. The suit suffers from lack of cause of action within the jurisdiction of this Court. This suit is not maintainable without leave to sue. The defendant under clause 12 of the Letter Patent Act, only the Court at Tuticorin where the defendant carrying on business and the goods delivered will have jurisdiction. The plaintiff purchased coal as per the purchase order to produce electr

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        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

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top