The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove that any amount was due to it from the defendants for the three Financial Years, namely, 2008-2009 to 2010-2011, and dismissed the suits and counter-claim.

JUDGMENT :

RFA No.3 of 2017, RFA No.6 of 2017 and RFA No.7 of 2017, on being listed together, were heard and are being disposed of by this judgment. The appellants are same in all the appeals. In RFA No.3 of 2017, defendants are M/s. Dreambox Marketing(A) Pvt. Ltd. and Bonoraj Choudhury, who is the Managing Director of the defendant no.1. In RFA No.6 of 2017 and RFA No.7 of 2017, the defendant no.1 is the Commandant, 128 Bn., C.R.P.F. and the Commandant, 156 Bn., C.R.P.F., respectively. Defendant no.2 in both the aforesaid appeals is M/s. Dreambox Marketing(A) Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Managing Director.

2. Mr. Udai P. Sharma, learned Counsel appears for the appellant in all the three appeals while Mr. A. Moulik, learned Senior Counsel appears for defendants in RFA No.3 of 2017 and for defendant no.2 in RFA No.6 of 2017 and RFA No.7 of 2017. Mr. Karma Thinlay, learned Central Government Counsel appears for defendant no.1 in RFA No.6 of 2017 and RFA No.7 of 2017.

3. RFA No. 03 of 2017 is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 30.05.2017 passed by the learned District Judge, East Sikkim at Gangtok in Money Suit No. 810 of 2013. RFA No. 06 of 2017 is preferred against a judgment and decree dated 31.05.2017 passed by the learned District Judge, Special Division-II, Sikkim at Gangtok, in Money Suit No. 18 of 2015. RFA No. 07 of 2017 is preferred against a judgment and decree dated 31.05.2017 passed by the learned District Judge, Special Division-II, Sikkim at Gangtok, in Money Suit No. 19 of 2015. The appellant is the plaintiff in respect of the three suits out of which the present appeals arise.

4. Learned Counsel for the parties are ad idem that decision in RFA No.3 of 2017 will have substantial bearing in the outcome of RFA No.6 of 2017 and RFA No.7 of 2017. Mr. Sharma has submitted that IA No.4of 2019 for amendment of Memorandum of Appeal to add additional grounds is pending. Mr.Moulik submits that it being a first appeal, the appellant may urge the grounds mentioned in the Memorandum of Appeal without there being any amendment of the Memorandum of Appeal.

5. Noting the above preliminary submissions, I will presently advert to the case of the plaintiff/appellant in RFA No.3 of 2017.

RFA No. 03 of 2017

6. The plaintiff is a private limited company registered under the Registration of Company Act, Sikkim, 1961 and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and distribution of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL). Defendant No.1 is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The defendants on 03.03.2007 had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the plaintiff for marketing of IMFL products of the plaintiff to para-military forces in North-East India and civil-bonded warehouses. The MoU was initially for two years with an option to renew the same for a further period of two years. The MoU, though renewed and validated till 31.03.2010, was not fully acted upon. Though Clause 2 of the MoU stipulated that payment is to be made by defendant no.1 to the plaintiff through Letter of Credit (L/C) after 70 days from the date of dispatch of goods on a consignment to consignment basis, however, as the defendants expressed difficulty, a different arrangement was worked out for smooth operation of the business whereby it was decided that defendants would deposit an ad hoc minimum amount by way of 60 days’ post-dated cheques drawn in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants, after procuring supply orders from the para-military forces, place supply orders to the plaintiff and thereafter, the plaintiff directly supplies the goods to the para-military forces along with the invoice which contains terms and conditions on its overleaf.

7. It is the case of the plaintiff that during Financial Year 2008-2009, plaintiff supplied goods valued at Rs.1,70,42,754/- to the para-military forces as per supply orders placed by the defendants and the amount was collected by the defendants. However, defendants made payment of only Rs.96,19