Delhi High Court
Shree Laxmikant Flour Industries Ltd. vs M/S. Prem Chand Naresh Kumar & Anr. on 26 July, 2011
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
Bench: Valmiki J.Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No.95/2002
% July 26, 2011
SHREE LAXMIKANT FLOUR INDUSTRIES LTD. ...... Appellant
Through: Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate.
VERSUS
M/S. PREM CHAND NARESH KUMAR & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Madan Lal Sharma, Advocate with Mr.
Varun Nischal, Advocate for respondent
No.1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment dated 20.10.2001 which has decreed the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs for recovery of money on account of goods/grains supplied.
RFA No. 95/2002. Page 1 of 5
2. The admitted facts of the case are that the appellant/defendant No.1 purchased the wheat grains from the respondents/plaintiffs. The respondents/plaintiffs from 31.7.1996 to 19.9.1996 sold grains totaling to value of Rs.19,82,258.35/- to the appellant/defendant No.1 and accordingly raised various bills and invoices. The appellant/defendant No.1 made part payment in the sum of Rs.17,10,424/- by means of bank draft payable at Delhi. The balance amount of Rs.2,71,834.35/- was not paid in spite of demands and whereupon a legal notice dated 13.3.1997 was sent which was replied to by a reply dated 10.4.1997 wherein it was admitted that grain was received, however, it was stated that no payment was due to respondents/plaintiffs because the respondents/plaintiffs failed to supply the complete quantity and therefore loss was caused to the appellant/defendant No.1. The trial Court has decreed the suit by holding that the Courts in Delhi have territorial jurisdiction because the acceptance was given on telephone from Delhi. It has also been established on record that payment was made in Delhi and it was made by bank draft payable at Delhi. The trial Court has further held that the supply has been proved as per the corresponding bills/invoices and the counter claim of the appellant/defendant No.1 could not be looked into in the absence of having been paid Court fees and not getting any issue framed to the effect that loss had been caused to the appellant.
RFA No. 95/2002. Page 2 of 5
3. Learned counsel for the appellant argued two points before me. It was firstly argued that the Courts in Delhi have no jurisdiction and secondly that the respondent/plaintiff had failed to supply the complete quantity resulting in loss to the appellant/defendant No.1.
4. I do not find any merit in the arguments as raised on behalf of the appellant. In a contract by telephone, the place from where acceptance is given is the place where the contract is concluded-Bhagwandas Goverdhan Kedia Vs. M/s. Girdharilal Parshottam Das and Co. Others AIR 1966 SC 543. Also, admittedly the payment was made to the respondents/plaintiffs by means of bank draft payable in Delhi. The place where payment is made is a place which would have territorial jurisdiction vide judgment of the Supreme Court reported as A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. A. P. Agencies, Salem AIR 1989 SC 1239. I have therefore no hesitation to hold that Courts in Delhi had territorial jurisdiction.
On the aspect that the respondents/plaintiffs were entitled to the amount paid for the grains/goods supplied, there can be no quarrel inasmuch as not only the relevant bills and invoices have been proved but in reply exhibited as Ex.PW1/30 to the legal notice exhibited as Ex.DW1/2, the appellant/defendant No.1 admitted to have received the goods but denied payment on the ground that complete goods were not supplied resulting in loss to the respondents. The trial Court has rightly said that if this case was true, the appellant/defendant No.1 ought to have filed the counter claim by RFA No. 95/2002. Page 3 of 5 payment of Court fee and ought to have got such an issue framed, however, no counter claim was filed, no Court fee was paid and nor an issue was framed on this basis. This argument of the appellant is also therefore rejected.
5. One aspect on which I am inclined to grant relief to the appellant/defendant No.1 is that trial Court has granted interest @ 15% per annum simple from 25.9.1996 to the date of filing of the suit and thereafter till realization. The Supreme Court in the recent chain of judgments reported as Rajendra Construction Co. v. Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority and others, 2005 (6) SCC 678, McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and others, 2006 (11) SCC 181, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Indag Rubber Ltd., (2006) 7 SCC 700, Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. G.Harischandra, 2007 (2) SCC 720 & State of Rajasthan Vs. Ferro Concrete Construction Pvt. Ltd (2009) 3 Arb. LR 140 (SC) has mandated the Courts to reduce the high rates of interest especially considering the long pendency of litigation.
6. Accordingly, I feel that in the facts and circumstances of the case, considering that the bills contain the higher rate of interest @ 27% per annum, I reduce the rate of interest granted by the trial Court from 15% per annum to 12% per annum simple. However, I am not changing the period for RFA No. 95/2002. Page 4 of 5 which the interest is granted by the impugned judgment and decree. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed to the limited extent of reducing the rate of interest as stated above, otherwise appeal is dismissed. The amount deposited in the Court by the appellant has been released to the respondents on furnishing security bond. Since the appeal has been dismissed, the security bond is discharged. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared. Trial Court record be sent back.
JULY 26, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
RFA No. 95/2002. Page 5 of 5