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

2009 Supreme(P&H) 1147

2009(4) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2806
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sham Sunder
Regular Second Appeal No.4365 of 2008
M/s Amar Singh & Sons, Tilak Bazar, Hisar, through its Proprietor, Shri Amar Singh.
v.
Haryana State through Collector, Hisar & Ors.
{Decided on 14/07/2009}

Advocates:
For the Appellant:Mr. B.R. Gupta, Advocate.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.9--Locus Standi--There was no privity of contract, between the plaintiff and the defendants, regarding the supply of goods. The contract regarding the supply of goods, was between the defendants, and M/s K. If M/s K authorized the plaintiff, as stockist, to supply the goods, in pursuance of the contract, which was entered into by it, with the defendants, and any claim arose, with regard to the price or interest on the delayed payments, then only M/s K could file a suit, for recovery. The plaintiff had no locus standi to file the suit.

       (B) Rendition of accounts--Sum being ascertainable--Suit not maintainable. (P.12)

       

JUDGMENT

Sham Sunder, J.:- This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.03.2007, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hisar, vide which it dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, for rendition of accounts and the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2008, rendered by the Court of District Judge, Hisar, vide which it dismissed the appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

2. Shorn off unnecessary details, the relevant facts of the case, are that Amar Singh, is the sole proprietor of the plaintiff concern, dealing in Vety. Medicines at Hisar. The plaintiff being an approved source of medicines etc. supply the same, to the Central Government, Haryana Govt. the Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, and the National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal. The Director, Animal Husbandry, Haryana, Chandigarh, and the Milk Commissioner, Haryana, Panchkula had placed orders for the supply of medicines, with the plaintiff, in the year 1996. The plaintiff supplied the medicines against those orders, from time to time, vide different bills, which provided that, in case of any delay, in payment, after 21 days of raising the same, the plaintiff shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 24% per annum. It was further stated that, as per the Government instructions, in case of any delay, on the part of the supplier, to supply the goods, penalty at the rate of 2% per month could be recovered. It was further stated that actually the purchasers had collected the penalty at the rate of 2% per month, from the plaintiff, as and when there was some delay, in supplying the goods. It was further stated that the plaintiff raised various bills worth Rs.28,03,728.71 Paisa in respect of the medicines supplied by it, to the Director of Animal Husbandry, Haryana, Chandigarh, in the year 1996. The department, however, pegged the price of these medicines at Rs.27,65,609/-. Then the plaintiff raised another bill amounting to Rs.4,16,618.22 paisa, in respect of the medicines, supplied by it to the Milk Commissioner, Haryana, Panchkula, in the year 1996, but the department pegged the price of those medicines at Rs.4,09,409/-. Both the departments did not release the aforesaid amount, because of a false complaint, filed by Dr. P.S. Gaur, former Milk Commissioner, Haryana, which was inquired by the Flying Squad of the Chief Minister, Haryana, Chandigarh, and also the Vigilance Department, Haryana, Chandigarh. It was further stated that the said enquiry was finalized, in the year 1999, in which it was found that Dr. P.S. Gaur, was in the habit of making false complaints and the complaint made by him, in the instant case, was also proved to be false and frivolous. The Government of Haryana decided vide letter dated 5.5.1999 that payment of the plaintiff be released and for delayed payment, interest be paid. It was further stated that despite this decision, various representations were made for payment by the plaintiff. Legal notice, through his Counsel, was also sent by the plaintiff for payment of interest on the amount of price of goods paid after delay, but the same was not made. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a Civil Writ Petition no. 5308 of 2002, in this Court. It was further stated that during the pendency of that Writ Petition, the defendants paid the principal amount of Rs.1,35,875/- in the month of December 2002 and Rs.2,74,017/- in the month of February, 2003 to the plaintiff. It was further stated that the above said Writ Petition was disposed of, by this Court, vide order dated 10.02.2003, with liberty to the plaintiff, to approach the Civil Court, for grant of interest, in accordance with the provisions of law. It was further stated that the plaintiff became entitled to interest, at the rate of 24% per annum on the delayed payments, after the expiry of a period of 21 days from the date of supply of medicines till 05.02.2003, when the last payment was made. Despite issuance of notice under Sec






















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
whatsapp-icon Back to top