AS.No.334 of 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED:

25.01.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN

AS.No.334 of 2013

Sree Rengaraaj Steel and Alloys Limited

by its Director P.Sampathkumar

Salem 636010

Appellant

Vs

MSTC Limited by its Regional Manager

I.N.Jha, Chennai-1

Respondent

Prayer:- This Appeal Suit has been filed, under Section 96 of CPC, against the

judgement and decree, dated, 20.11.2012, passed in OS.No.14336 of 2010, by

the VII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.

For Appellant

:

Mr.P.R.Raman, SC for Mr.A.Uma Sankar

For Respondent

:

Mr.P.Subba Reddy

JUDGEMENT

(Judgement of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.)

1. The Defendant in OS.No.14336 of 2010, on the file of VII Additional City Civil

Court, Chennai is the Appellant in this appeal.

2. The Defendant filed the suit originally in CS.No.1003 of 1999, before this

Court. Later, the same was transferred to the VII Additional City Civil Court,

Chennai and renumbered as OS.No.14336 of 2010.

1/8

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

AS.No.334 of 2013

3. The Respondent/ Plaintiff filed the said suit for recovery of a sum of

Rs.19,91,471/-, with interest at 25% p.a. from the Appellant/ Defendant. The

Plaintiff is a Government Company. The Defendant is also a Company

registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The Plaintiff has been carrying

on the business of export and import trade, as a canalising agent under the

export and import policy of Government of India. The Plaintiff used to book

purchase orders for shredded scraps of various parties abroad to customers

who intended to purchase from abroad.

4. It is admitted that as between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, there is a

contract, the Defendant is liable to pay price for the quantity of the goods

purchased by it. In addition to the price, it is also stated that the Defendant is

liable to pay the Plaintiff bank charges and service charges at 1.1% to 2%

per tonne. It is further stated that as part of the arrangement, for the

quantity booked by the Defendant, the Plaintiff used to arrange bill of lading

equivalent to the quantity booked by the Defendant or any other Indian

customers so that the ship on arrival could deliver the Defendant identified

quantities intended for the customer.

5. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the Defendant, who is one of the customers

of the Plaintiff, purchased 4150 MT covered by various bills of lading. The

Plaintiff has granted 175 days interest free time credit after delivery of the

materials to the Defendant. It is also stated that the customer, like the

Defendant, is liable for the price agreed and the difference calculated at the

prevailing exchange rate as on the date of such payment. Stating that the

2/8

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

AS.No.334 of 2013

Defendant has to pay an amount of Rs.23,59,408/- towards the purchase of

materials through the Plaintiff, the suit came to be filed for recovery of a sum

of Rs.19,91,471/- with interest at 24% p.a on the sum of Rs.12,01,942.88/-

as the Plaintiff admitted payment of Rs.7,49,064/- on 06.07.1996. The suit

was filed on 21.01.2000.

6. Though the Defendant filed a detailed written statement, raising several

grounds, including a counter claim for a sum of Rs.15,66,705.70/-, one of the

main grounds raised in the written statement is that the suit for recovery of

money is barred by limitation, as the suit itself is laid three years after the

cause of action arose for recovery of money. It is seen that the Defendant

though seriously disputed the liability, the quantity of material purchased by

the Defendant through the Plaintiff and the money due as per the terms of

the contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, are not in dispute. The

counter claim is based on the allegation that the Plaintiff had received

excess amount towards change in Dollar value and the am