C.S.No.87 of 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 30.08.2022

Coram:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

C.S. No.87 of 2020

M/s.National Ventures Private Limited,

Represented by its Director,

Mr.A.Bhanu Prasad,

SWELECT HOUSE

No.5, P.S.Sivasamy Salai, Mylapore,

Chennai-600 004.

.. Plaintiff

Vs.

M/s.TROIS CORPORATION HK LTD

Represented by its Director, Mr. Ankush Shah

RM 1903, 19/F, Emperor Group Centre

288, Hennessey Road, Wanchai

Hong Kong.

.. Defendant

This Civil Suit has been filed under IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules read

with Order VII Rule 1 C.P.C. Read with 3A of Schedule of Commercial Cout,

Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act,

2015, praying to grant a judgment and decree on the following prayers: (i)

Directing the defendant to pay the Plaintiff a sum of Rs.3,42,13,760/- (Rupees

Three Crore Forty Two Lakhs Thirteen Thousand Seven Hundred Seven

Hundred and Sixty only) with subsequent interest from the date of plaint till the

date of realization @ 24% per annum for Rs.3,42,13,760/- (Rupees Three Crore

Forty Two Lakhs Thirteen Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty only) as this is a

Page No.

1 / 8

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

C.S.No.87 of 2020

commercial transaction within the meaning of Section 34 CPC till the date of

payment; and (ii) Directing the defendant to pay to the Plaintiff to the costs of the

suit.

For Plaintiff : M/s.P.Solomon Francis

T.Vasanth

JUDGMENT

The suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,42,13,760/- from the

defendant as damages for breach of contract along with interest at 24% p.a. from

the date of plaint until realization.

2. At the hearing on 12.07.2022, it was recorded that suit summons was

served on the defendant on 14.03.2022. Since the defendant was not represented,

the Registry was directed to print the name of the defendant in the cause list for

the next hearing on 02.08.2022. Once again, there was no representation for the

defendant. Consequently, the defendant was set ex parte and the matter was

posted before the learned Additional Master I for recording the ex parte

evidence of the plaintiff. The plaintiff examined Mr.A.Bhanu Prasad, Director, as

PW1. In course of examination of PW1, 13 documents were exhibited as Exs.P1

to P13.

3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff relied upon Ex.P1 and pointed out that

Page No.

2 / 8

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

C.S.No.87 of 2020

a contract was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant for the supply

of iron ore fines by the plaintiff to the defendant. He further submitted that the

contract specified the quantity to be supplied as 20,000 WMT and the price was

initially fixed at United States Dollar (USD) 69 per dry metric tonne (PDMT),

which was subsequently reduced by mutual consent to USD 60 PDMT. By

referring to Exs.P2 and P3, he pointed out that the shipping agent communicated

to the plaintiff that the vessel was cancelled. As a result, he stated that the

defendant reneged on its obligation to buy 20000 WMT of iron ore fines and,

therefore, the plaintiff could not realize payment at USD 60 per DMT. In

recognition of this, he stated that the defendant made a remittance of USD

50,000 under Ex.P4. By referring to the subsequent sale in favour of Creation

United (HK) Enterprises Co. Limited under Exs.P7 to P10, he pointed out that

the sale was effected at the rate of USD 45 per DMT. As a result, he submitted

that the plaintiff incurred a loss of USD 4,28,768, which is equivalent to

Rs.3,42,13,760/- at the conversion rate of Rs.70 per USD. Although the

applicable exchange rate was Rs.71 per USD on the date of plaint, he stated

that the claim was made on the basis of the lower exchange rate of Rs.70 per

USD.

Page No.

3 / 8

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

C.S.No.87 of 2020

4. Ex.P1 discloses that the contract between the plaintiff and the defen