2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 6711
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 16.11.2023 PRONOUNCED ON: 01.02.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA A.S.No. 135 of 2021 M/s. Flowtech Water Meters and Instruments (P) Ltd,.
Rep by its Managing Director, Having Office at SF No.694/1A, 2A, Madhukkarai Road, Kurichy, Coimbatore – 641 012. ... Appellant Vs.
M/s. Anand Water Meter Mfg. Company (P) Ltd., Rep by its Managing Director, Having Office at XL/490, Anand House, C.L.Anand Lane, M.G.Road, Cochin – 682 011 ...Respondent PRAYER: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI and XLI – A of Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the Judgement and Decree dated 07.12.2019 made in O.S.No.171 of 2015 on the file of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore and decreeing the original suit with costs throughout.
For Appellant : Mr. N.Somasundaar For Respondent : Mr. Pranav V.Shankar.
JUDGEMENT
The above First Appeal is filed challenging the Judgement and Decree passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, in O.S.No. 171 of 2015. For ease of understanding in the narration of the facts given below, the parties are referred to in the same rank as in the suit.
2. The suit has been instituted for recovery of a sum of Rs.15,19,740/- together with interest at 18% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realisation and for directing the defendants to issue all the C Forms pertaining to the delivery of goods and for costs.
Plaintiff's case:
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is a manufacturer of water meters. They had been making supplies to the defendant on the orders placed by them. However, the plaintiff had not received the payment for these supplies. As per the terms of the invoice, the amounts had to be paid within 15 days and over and above 15 days, the outstanding amounts were to attract 18% interest per annum from the date of the respective invoices till date of payment. In addition, the defendant was also required to issue C Forms, in order to enable the plaintiff to avail tax benefits.
4. The plaintiff had issued a letter dated 30.06.2012 calling upon the defendant to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.10,12,125/- as per the statement of accounts maintained by them. However, the defendant had issued a reply dated 20.09.2012, calling upon the plaintiff to issue C Forms to them without clearing their outstandings. On 26.09.2012, the plaintiff once again addressed a letter to the defendant to clear the dues. To this, by reply dated 12.10.2012, the defendant once again demanded C Forms for the supply effected by them to the plaintiff.
5. From a reading of the plaint, it appears that letters were being exchanged back and forth with the plaintiff demanding payment and C Forms and the defendant demanding C Forms. Finally by letter dated 11.02.2015, the plaintiff had demanded the payment and stated that without payment being made a demand for producing C Forms cannot be made and also informing the defendant that if the payments are not received, the plaintiff would be initiating legal proceedings. This was followed by a legal notice dated 11.03.2015 calling upon the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.10,12,125/- towards principle, i.e., amounts due under the invoices and Rs.5,46,547/- towards interest as due as on
28.02.2015. This notice had been received by the defendant. 6. The plaintiff would contend that the last payment made by the defendant was on 25.06.2012 being a sum of Rs.61,598/- under a cheque drawn in Punjab National Bank. Therefore, the plaintiff has instituted the above suit for the relief claimed supra.
Defendant's case:
7. The defendant filed a written statement with a counter claim for a direction to the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs.13,73,173/- together with interest at 18% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realisation and for direction to the plaintiff to furnish the C Forms to the defendant as set out in annexure A to the written statement within a time to be stipulated by the Court. 8. The defendant would at the outset submit that the Trial Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the plaint since the suit ought to have been filed in the Court within whose jurisdiction the defendant resides or is carrying on business or where the cause of action arises. According to the defendant, the goods were supplied at Cochin and payments were also made at Cochin. The defendant would contend that their application for return of plaint in I.A.No.487 of 2015 had been dismissed against which there was no further revision.
9. The defendant would submit that in their reply they had been demanding payment and also to issue C Forms. Further, the defendant would contend that they had handed over the C Forms upto January 2012 to the plaintiff. This fact has been suppressed in the plaint. However, the C Forms that the plaintiff was required to furnish to the