The court upheld the trial court's decree for recovery of dues based on credible documentary evidence, affirming the contractual obligations of the defendants.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA)

1. This is defendants’ appeal against the judgment and decree dated 22.02.2018, passed in O.S. No.59/2008 by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Hosapete. The plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of the amount from the defendant Nos.1 to 3. The said suit was decreed by the impugned judgment. The same is challenged by defendant Nos.1 to 3 in the present appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

3. Brief facts of the case of both the parties before the trial Court are as under:

It is the case of the plaintiff that, he is the Proprietor of the Business concern by name of “Sreenidhi Trading Company” and the defendants’ Firm has contacts with mine owners and sellers of iron ore. Defendant No.3 being ostensibly authorised as a Director to enter into a contract on behalf of defendant Nos.1 and 2.

4. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 agreed to supply ten thousand metric tons of iron ore and allied products @ the rate of Rs.1,742/- per ton including the tax. The second defendant through the third defendant, requested for advance payment against the aforesaid orders of ore of Rs.1,74,20,000/-. As per the request of defendants, the plaintiff had paid the said amount from time to time, through cheques as well as cash. The plaintiff has maintained running account of the defendants, since they were supplying ore on piecemeal quantity from time to time. Similarly plaintiff was also advancing the amount from time to time.

5. The defendants started supplying the iron ore as per the orders of the plaintiff, from 06.10.2006 till 13.03.2007. Defendant No.3 used to issue invoices for the supply made to the plaintiff. Defendants gave statements under their letter head and signed by the defendant No.3 dated 15.03.2007, and 17.08.2007, wherein the defendants have confirmed that the defendants have yet to supply 1,490.133 metric tons towards the total advance amount received and defendants acknowledged dues to the extent of Rs.27,50,787/-. Defendants also agreed in the said letter that they would complete the aforesaid deficit supply within seven days, failing which they will return the said amount along with interest at the rate of 2% per mensum.

6. It is further contented by the plaintiff that the defendants failed to supply the materials or repaid the advance amount in a sum of Rs.27,50,787 along with the interest with these reasons prayed to decree the suit.

7. Defendant No.3 has filed the written statement and it was adopted by defendant Nos.1 and 2. Defendants admitted the transaction between plaintiff with them. They also admitted about the supply of certain quantity of iron ore to the plaintiff. They have specifically contended that the defendants have supplied crushed calibrated iron ore as per the requirement of the plaintiff in a total quantity of 5,941 metric tons at the rate as quoted in the invoice price plus transportation charges of Rs.120/- per ton from 06.10.2006 to 13.03.2007 as against the payments made through cheques. The defendants denied receipt of the amount through cash. They further contended that the defendants have received Rs.1,10,56,275/- from the plaintiff through different cheques and they have supplied iron ore as per the required specifications of the plaintiff on FOR basis at Cantonment Railway station, against the payment of the amount through cheques. The supply of iron were as stated by the defendants from 06.10.2006 to 13.03.2007 tallied with amount paid by the plaintiff through cheques.

8. It is further contended by the defendants that the plaintiff has also agreed to pay transportation charges of Rs.120/- per metric ton. The plaintiff intelligently has not calculated the transportation charges of Rs.120/- per metric ton. The materials of 5,940.03 metric ton iron ore supplied till 13.03.2007 would costs Rs.1,10,78,087/-.

9. Defendants further contended that plaintiff persuaded the defendants to g