JUDGMENT

The suit for recovery of money due for the goods sold and delivered.

Since the suit is in respect of payment for the coal imported above the specified value, the nature of suit was determined as Commercial Suit falling under the Section 2(1)(c)(ii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

2. Case of the plaintiff in short:

The plaintiff is in the business of iron ore, coal, barite, bentonite and other minerals. Having Office at Chennai. The defendant is in the business of producing electricity. Having Office at Chennai and plant at Tuticorin. The defendant approached the plaintiff for supply of Non Coking Stream Coal of Indonesian Origin for its plant and the plaintiff agreed. The plaintiff and the defendant entered into an High Seas Sale agreement (HSS agreement) on 25.02.2014 for 3000 MTS of coal at the rate of Rs.2500/- per MT. On the same day, the plaintiff raised invoice for Rs.75,00,000/-. The defendant, who is supposed to pay the invoice amount within 60 days as per the terms of agreement failed to effect payment. Several meetings between the parties for settlement of the due not yielded result and several promises given by the defendant not kept. The defendant promised to pay on receiving money from TANGEDCO against whom they have filed petition before the Tami Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (TNERC). In the meeting held between the plaintiff and the defendant at Chennai, the defendant promised to clear the dues before January 2017. However, the defendant failed to keep up the promise. Though, the defendant received more than Rs.100 crores from TANGEDCO, did not settle the plaintiff dues. On the date of plaint, the defendant is liable to pay Rs.75,00,000/-

towards principal and Rs.33,02,877/- towards interest.

3. Case of the defendant in short:

The suit is not maintainable. The alleged cause of action for the suit claim arose outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The goods allegedly delivered only at Tuticorin where the defendant plant is located. Therefore, suit against defendant carrying on business outside the jurisdiction of this Court without obtaining leave under clause 12 of Letters Patent is liable to be rejected. Without prejudice to the defence on jurisdiction. The transaction alleged in the plaintiff is denied. The defendant never purchased coal from the plaintiff consequentially no amount is payable to the defendant. The HSS relied by the plaintiff not signed by any authorised signatory of the defendant. Even assuming goods was sold to the defendant under invoice dated 26.02.2014, the suit filed on 01.06.2017 for recovery of money towards the goods sold and delivered is barred by limitation. There is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. No goods supplied to the defendant by the plaintiff as claimed. The HSS document was not executed by the defendant. The alleged meeting for settling the dues is imaginary and false.

4. Based on the pleadings, this Court framed the following issues for consideration:

(i). Whether the Hon'ble High Court, Madras has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant?

(ii).Whether the plaintiff has supplied any Goods(Coal)

to the defendant in terms of the High Seas Sale Agreement dated 21.10.2014 and whether the plaintiff and defendant had entered into such agreement?

(iii)Whether the claim of the plaintiff is barred by limitation or not?

(iv)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,08,02,877/- as on 31.05.2017 with interest at the rate of

18% on the principal sum of Rs.75,00,000?

(v)To what other reliefs, the plaintiff is entitled to?

5. On behalf of the plaintiff, D.Hari Prasad Reddy (PW.1) was examined and 11 documents (Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-11) marked. On behalf of defendant, Prakash Manian (D.W.1) examined. During the cross examination of D.W-1, the plaintiffs marked Ex.P-12 to Ex.P-17.

(i). Issue No 1:

As per the plaint, the negotiation for the sale and purchase of coal took place at Chennai