S.A.No.277 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 08.11.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

S.A.No.277 of 2023

&

C.M.P.No. 8174 of 2023

The Superintending Engineer,

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,

CEDC/ South,

K.K. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 078.

... Appellant

Vs

M/s.Ambica Gen Power

Represented by its Proprietor

Promod Kumar Dage,

No.5, Bakers Street,

1^st Floor, Chennai – 600 001.

...

Respondent

1/15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A.No.277 of 2023

Prayer : The appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil

Procedure against the Judgement and Decree dated 10.12.2020 made

in A.S.No.377 of 2018 on the file of XVII Additional Judge, City Civil

Court, Chennai reversing the Judgement and Decree dated 28.06.2017

made in O.S.No. 5830 of 2011 on the file of the XVIII Assistant

Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

For Appellant

:

Mrs. J.Hemalatha

For Respondent

:

Mr. R.Anantha Ramakrishnan.

JUDGEMENT

The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board who was the defendant in the

suit O.S.No.5830 of 2011 is the appellant before this Court

challenging the Judgement in A.S.No.377 of 2018 reversing the

Judgement and Decree in O.S.No.5830 of 2011 of the XVIII Assistant

2/15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A.No.277 of 2023

Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The facts are briefly set out herein

below with the parties being referred to in the same rank as before the

Trial Court.

2. The plaintiff had filed the above referred suit for recovery of

a sum of Rs.4,87,755/- together with interest at 22 % per annum for

the sum of Rs.3,11,002/- from the date of the plaint till the date of

realisation. It is the case of the plaintiff that it is a proprietory

concern dealing with copper enamel wires and electrical items. The

defendant had invited tender for the supply of 640 Kgs of TC fuse

wire 14 SWG for their use. On 26.05.2008, purchase order for the

supply of these materials were placed and the plaintiff agreed to

supply these goods to the defendant and the defendant after checking

the sample had entered into the contract.

3. Pursuant to the approval of their bid, the plaintiff had paid

3/15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A.No.277 of 2023

security deposit and had also produced sales tax certificates and other

documents as required. The plaintiff was called upon to effect supply

and accordingly the plaintiff supplied goods to the tune of

Rs.2,96,192/-.

4. On 04.08.2008, the Chief Stores Officer Central Stores /

CEDC (South) wrote a letter to the plaintiff stating that the goods

supplied by the plaintiff were defective as the TC fuse wire had blown

off immediately when tested and they wanted the plaintiff to replace

the entire material, to this the plaintiff had issued a reply dated

06.08.2008, denying the allegation and contending that goods supplied

were in conformity with the sample and they requested the material to

be re-tested in a common lab i.e., National Test House, Tharamani,

Chennai which is a Central Lab and they had requested the defendant

to organise a joint inspection.

4/15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A.No.277 of 2023

5. The plaintiff would submit that the report given by the

defendant's lab has been issued in a biased manner and the defendant

had inspected the materials in their own lab without their presence.

On 06.09.2008, the plaintiff issued a notice to the defendant asking

them to organise a joint inspection. The plaintiff would submit that

this was not a new request that they were making. When a similar

dispute had arisen in the year 2006, the materials were sent to the

National Test House, Tharamani and the report issued by them was

accepted by the defendant. On the basis of which the defendant had

accepted the plaintiff's goods.

6. The plaintiff would further submit that on 24.12.2008 the

defendant had issued a letter stating that the plaintiff had not come for

witnessing the testing