Karnataka High Court
M/S.Water Jet Engineers vs M/S.Jangan Trading India on 6 August, 2013
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.720 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
1. M/s. Water Jet Engineers,
having its place of business at
Post Box No.50,
I.C.Road, Chikmagalur,
Karnataka - 577 101,
By its Partner.
2. Mr. Micheal,
Major,
Partner,
M/s. Water Jet Engineers,
Having its place of business
At Post Box No.50,
I.C.Road,
Chikmagalur,
Karnataka - 577 101.
3. Mr. Nataraj,
Major,
Partner, M/s. Water Jet Engineers,
Having its place of business
At Post Box No.50,
2
I.C.Road, Chikmagalur,
Karnataka - 577 101. ...APPELLANTS
(By Shri. H.N.M. Prasad, Advocate)
AND:
M/s. Jangan Trading India,
Having its place of business
At No.626, 2nd Main,
1st Stage, Indiranagar,
Bangalore,
Represented by its
Managing Partner,
Mr. Thomas Mathew. ...RESPONDENT
(vide order dated 9.3.2012 service of notice to the respondent is
held sufficient)
*****
This Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree
dated 19.1.2010 passed in O.S.No.370/2003 on the file of the
XXXIII - Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, decreeing
the suit for recovery of money.
This appeal coming on for Hearing this day, the Court made
the following:
3
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants.
2. The respondent having been served, remains unrepresented.
3. The facts of the case are as follows:-
The plaintiff was said to be a partnership firm dealing in agricultural equipments, including garden, landscaping and maintenance equipment. The first defendant is also a business enterprise, which had entered into an agreement with the plaintiff, which was reduced in the form of Minutes of a meeting dated 31.7.2000, whereby it was agreed that the plaintiff would supply the goods on orders placed by the defendants and the defendants were to make payments within seven days from the date of the plaintiff's invoice and that there was a one year warranty, on such goods supplied. It transpires that the defendants had allegedly defaulted in payment of the price towards the goods 4 supplied to an extent of Rs.3,29,937.39 and therefore, the plaintiff had put the defendants on notice of the same and claimed interest at 18% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realization. The defendants not having complied with the demand, the suit was filed.
4. The defendants entered appearance and contested the suit and claimed that in terms of the agreement between the parties, it was agreed that any defective goods supplied would be replaced with other goods and that the defendants cannot be held liable for payment in respect of such defective goods. Consequently, over a period of time, several consignments that were supplied were found to be defective and such defective goods, valued at over Rs.2,12,246/- had been returned to the plaintiff, with notice of such defects pointed out in the several consignments under lorry receipts produced as Exhibits D.5, D.6 and D.7. The plaintiff however chose to negate such return of the 5 material and insisted on payment for the supplies made. It was this controversy, which was adjudicated by the trial court.
5. The trial court has proceeded only on the basis of the contentions raised at the trial in the form of evidence by the parties and has proceeded to hold that the defendants were not categorical in their defence. While the court below has found favour with the plaintiff on the basis of the suggestions made during the course of cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses and has opined that if the defendants were not due to the plaintiff, such question would not have been posed. This reasoning apart, the trial court has not chosen to address the main defence raised by the defendants that there were defective goods supplied and the plaintiff was required to replace them, which the plaintiff had refused and negated. This was a crucial claim of the defendants that has been overlooked. The sum of Rs.2,12,246/- which is the value of the defective goods if taken into account, the defendants were in a position to demonstrate that it is the 6 plaintiff, who owed the defendants money and not the other way around. This crucial aspect not having been taken note of by the trial court, is on the face of it, demonstrated by the learned counsel for the appellants.
However, since the appeal is not contested, this court accepts the arguments put-forth by the learned Counsel for the appellants on the basis of the material produced.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the court below is set aside. The amount in deposit before this court by the appellants may be withdrawn.
Sd/-
JUDGE nv