THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

AND

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL No. 39 of 2014

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy

This Appeal is filed by the appellant/defendant against the Judgment

and Decree dated 13.06.2013 passed in O.S.No.255 of 2005 (hereinafter will be referred as ‘impugned judgment’) on the file of XIV Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court (hereinafter will be referred as ‘Trial Court’), wherein the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for

recovery of money was allowed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as they

were arrayed before the Trial Court.

I. BRIEF FACTS:

3. The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the available record are that the plaintiff alleged to have purchased cable network material worth of ₹19,00,788/- in the month of February, 2002, at the request and on the assurance of the defendant, who is a multi-system operator. The plaintiff having forwarded the bills on 29.06.2004, received acknowledgment from the defendant under fax dated 14.07.2004, wherein

the defendant requested for the Goods Receipt Notes. After adjustment of an amount of ₹4,11,788/- towards maintenance charges, the defendant stood indebted to a sum of ₹14,89,000/, out of which part payment of ₹4,40,796/- was affected by cheque dated 17.07.2004. Despite repeated demands and the issuance of a legal notice dated 17.11.2004, the defendant failed and neglected to pay the balance amount. The conduct of the defendant compelled the plaintiff to institute the above suit seeking recovery of the balance amount of ₹10,48,204/- together with interest at 18% per annum from February, 2002 till January 2005, aggregating to Rs.18,52,264/-.

4. In reply to the plaint averments, the defendant filed written statement and additional written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff. It is contended that the suit is not maintainable either on facts or in law, as there was no agreement or privity of contract between the parties in respect of the alleged purchases, and the plaintiff had no authority, either oral or written, to procure material on behalf of the defendant. The letter dated 12.08.2004 relied upon by the plaintiff only pointed out breaches and misrepresentations on the part of the plaintiff, for which the defendant suffered losses, and despite such loss, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid as an advance to the plaintiff. It was further contended that no promise to reimburse the alleged costs was made by him and that the issuance of a cheque dated 17.07.2004 has been misrepresented by the plaintiff and in fact, the defendant has always acted fairly and never played any fraud.

II. ISSUES FRAMED BY THE TRIAL COURT

5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for determination:

(i) Whether there is privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff purchased material, at the request of the defendant?

(iii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree, as prayed for?

(iv) To what relief?

III. EVIDENCE ON RECORD

6. During the course of trial, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A25 on his behalf, whereas the Senior Manager- Accounts for the defendant was examined as DW1 and got marked Ex.B1 on behalf of defendant.

IV. FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT

7. After considering the rival contentions, the trial Court, by judgment dated 13.06.2013, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff holding that there is a privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant and the plaintiff purchased the cable material in order to sell the same to the defendant and as the suit transaction is a commercial transaction, the plaintiff is entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

8. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant filed the present Appeal to set aside the impugned judgment and decree.

V. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES:

a) Submissions on behalf of the A