Delhi District Court
Amitex Polymers Pvt. Ltd vs Scj Plastics Ltd on 3 November, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. BALWANT RAI BANSAL,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE02 (SOUTHEAST),
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Civil Suit No. 57/14
Amitex Polymers Pvt. Ltd.
..... Plaintiff
Vs.
SCJ Plastics Ltd.
..... Defendant
O R D E R:
1. Vide this order I shall dispose of an application U/o 1 Rule 10 CPC moved by defendants no. 2 to 6.
2. It is stated in the application that plaintiff has filed the present suit claiming that plaintiff has suffered losses due to goods supplied by defendant no. 1 company. The defendants no. 2 to 6 have no concern in any manner in respect of the goods supplied by defendant no. 1 company to the plaintiff vide three invoices nor they were party to the contract between the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 company and, therefore, the defendants no. 2 to 6 are not necessary and proper party in the present suit. The plaintiff has no right to any relief against defendant no. 2 to 6 in respect of alleged dispute CS No. 57/14 Amitex Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. SCJ Plastics Ltd. Page 1 of 5 involved in the present suit in respect of supply of goods by defendant no. 1 to the plaintiff. Hence, it has been prayed that name of defendant no. 2 to 6 may be deleted from the array of the parties.
3. The plaintiff filed reply to the application contending that the defendant no. 1, 2 and 7 are liable for compensating the plaintiff in view of the settlement dated 01.06.2011 agreed upon by them and the defendants no. 3 to 6 being the partners of defendant no. 2 firm are also personally and jointly liable. It is stated that the defendant no. 1 company and defendant no. 2 firm have created two separate business associations which are being managed by family members to evade and avoid tax liability. It is denied that present suit is filed on the basis of three invoices. It is denied that the partners of defendant no. 2 firm are not party to the contract to minutes of meeting dated 01.06.2011. It is stated that the settlement was arrived at vide MoU dated 01.06.2011 signed by defendant no. 1 for defendant no. 1 & 2 for which all the defendants are liable to compensate the plaintiff for supplying of sub standard goods by the defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 of which the defendants no. 3 to 6 are partners and therefore all the defendants are necessary party.
4. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
5. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of CS No. 57/14 Amitex Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. SCJ Plastics Ltd. Page 2 of 5 money against the defendants. The defendant no. 1 is a company and defendant no. 2 is partnership firm of which the defendants no. 3 to 6 are the partners. As per the plaintiff, the defendant no. 6 who is the director of defendant no. 1 company and one of partner of defendant no. 2 firm approached the plaintiff for the business. The plaintiff placed the order to defendant no. 1 for supply of goods subject to certain conditions which were supplied by defendant no. 1 to the plaintiff but same were found to be defective and of substandard quality. The plaintiff informed the same to the defendant and claims that the plaintiff suffered huge losses in the market. It is stated that the defendant no. 7 came to the office of plaintiff on 01.06.2011 and accepted the substandard quality of the goods and entered into a settlement and a memorandum of understanding dated 01.06.2011 was drawn. But the defendant failed to honour the commitment as per the MoU dated 01.06.2011 by which they have agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 14,00,000/ and therefore the plaintiff has filed the present suit.
6. The plaintiff in support of its contention relied upon the MoU dated 01.06.2011. It is apparent from the aforesaid pleadings that the goods were supplied to the plaintiff by defendant no. 1 company and there was contract between the plaintiff and defendant no. 1. The suit of the plaintiff is based on the MoU dated 01.06.2011 by which the plaintiff claims that defendant no. 1 admitted the supply of CS No. 57/14 Amitex Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. SCJ Plastics Ltd. Page 3 of 5 defective goods against the invoices and to pay a sum of Rs. 14,00,000/ to the plaintiff towards compensation. The MoU dated 01.06.2011 is the basis of the present suit and it shows that same has been entered into by M/s SCJ Plastics Ltd. i.e. defendant no. 1 and the plaintiff in respect of three invoices bearing No. 04980 dated 08.01.2011, 04388 dated 03.12.2010 and 04315 dated 30.11.2010. Through these invoices the goods were supplied by defendant no. 1 to the plaintiff. Therefore, it is apparent that there is no cause of action against the defendant no. 2 to 6 as defendant no. 2 is a partnership firm of which the defendant no. 3 to 6 are the partners.
7. Though the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff argued that his case is not restricted to the defective goods but there is also another suit filed by the defendant no. 2, the firm and he states that defendant no. 2 being sister concern of defendant no. 1 are supplying the goods under the name of defendant no. 1 or under the name of defendant no.
2. The counsel for the plaintiff also argued that in the MoU dated 01.06.2011, there is reference of M/s SCJ and therefore it is not ascertainable as to whether this settlement was in respect of the goods supplied by defendant no. 1 or defendant no. 2 because the names of both the firms start with M/s SCJ. However, in my considered view, these contentions are without any merit. The specific case of the plaintiff is that the defendant no. 1 i.e. M/s SCJ Plastics Ltd. supplied CS No. 57/14 Amitex Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. SCJ Plastics Ltd. Page 4 of 5 the goods to the plaintiff vide invoices bearing no. 4980, 4388 and 4315 which were defective and pursuant to the MoU dated 01.06.2011, the defendant no. 1 had agreed to pay Rs. 14,00,000/ towards the compensation. In the MoU dated 01.06.2011, again in the subject there is reference of three invoices and in the bottom of said MoU same has been accepted by M/s SCJ Plastics Ltd, the defendant no. 1. Therefore, defendant no. 2 to 6 have no role to play as they have neither supplied the goods to the plaintiff nor they have entered into any settlement with the plaintiff and therefore there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 to 6. If the defendant no. 2 has filed some case against the plaintiff in respect of some other transaction, then it would not make them as a necessary party in the present suit in which there is no cause of action and privity of contract. Hence, the application is allowed and there being no privity of contract between plaintiff and defendant no. 2 to 6, they are deleted from the array of the parties.
Announced in open Court (Balwant Rai Bansal)
on 3rd November, 2014 Addl. District Judge 02 (SouthEast)
Saket Courts, New Delhi
CS No. 57/14
Amitex Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. SCJ Plastics Ltd. Page 5 of 5
CS No. 57/14
Amitex Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. SCJ Plastics Ltd.
03.11.2014
Present: None
Vide my separate order of even date, application moved by the defendant no. 2 to 6 u/o 1 rule 10 CPC is allowed. Plaintiff is directed to file the amended memo of parties.
Now, to come up on 05.12.2014 for admission/denial of documents and framing of issues.
(Balwant Rai Bansal) ADJ02/SE/Saket/New Delhi 03.11.2014 CS No. 57/14 Amitex Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. SCJ Plastics Ltd. Page 6 of 5