Delhi High Court - Orders
M/S Agrico Organic Ltd vs M/S Bharat Minerals And Chemical Ind on 31 May, 2023
Author: Manmohan
Bench: Manmohan
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA(COMM) 113/2023
M/S AGRICO ORGANIC LTD ..... APPELLANT
Through: Mr.Kunal Madan, Advocate.
versus
M/S BHARAT MINERALS AND CHEMICAL IND.
..... RESPONDENT
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
ORDER
% 31.05.2023 C.M.No.30711/2023 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
RFA(COMM) 113/2023 & C.M.No.30712/2023
1. Present appeal has been filed challenging order dated 28th January, 2023 passed by the learned District Judge, Commercial Court-01, West District, Tis Hazari, Delhi in CS (COMM) No.642/2021, whereby the appellant-plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs.1,33,13,266/- on account of balance payment for goods supplied along with interest was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the learned Trial Court erroneously dismissed the suit in a mechanical manner without considering the evidence and material available on the record. He states that the order of the Trial Court suffers from ambiguity and is based on conjectures and surmises. He states that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the rates reflected in invoices issued against goods supplied by the This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/10/2023 at 05:41:48 appellant to the respondent were never disputed by the respondent. He emphasises that the respondent admitted the invoices and assured the appellant that they would clear the outstanding amount. He further states that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent had admitted that it had not filed any document to show that the respondent had raised an issue with regard to the change of rates of the goods supplied to it by the appellant. He further points out that the respondent has not brought on record any documents showing that the parties had agreed that the goods would be supplied at the rate of Rs.1000 per kg.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the Appellant vide E-mail dated 20th September, 2016, only assured the Respondent that it had capacity to supply the said goods / products and that there was no discussion regarding the rate at which the goods would be supplied by the appellant. He states that that terms of the agreement between the Respondent and CMSS, which is a third party is not binding on the appellant as there is no privity of contract between the appellant and the respondent's customer (CMSS). He further states that the nature of the articles is such that its market rates are fluctuating and so the rates at which the products would be supplied could not be decided but was rather dependent on the market rates.
4. Issue notice to the respondent by all modes of service including dasti, returnable on 28th August, 2023.
MANMOHAN, J SAURABH BANERJEE, J MAY 31, 2023/KA This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/10/2023 at 05:41:48