Bangalore District Court
Hiren Chandarana vs Violet Clothing Pvt.Ltd on 4 January, 2019
[C.R.P. 67] Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9 (Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgment in Suits
(R.P.91)
IN THE COURT OF THE XIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE
AT BANGALORE [CCH.No.28]
Present: Sri.G.A.Mulimani, M.A., LL.B. (Spl.)
XIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE
Dated this the 4th day of January, 2019
O.S.No.7988/2012
Plaintiff/s : Hiren Chandarana,
S/o Haresh G.Chandarana,
Aged about 38 years,
Proprietor: Radiant Global Tech
Solutions, Site No.3,
Shamanna Garden,
Chunchungutta Road,
Off: Kanakapura Road,
Jaraganahalli,
Bangalore-560 078
(By Sri.K.A.A., Advocate)
- Vs -
Defendant/s : Violet Clothing Pvt.Ltd.,
A company registered under the
Companies Act, having its registered
Office at No.704, A Wing,
Mangalaya Towers,
Marol Maharoshi Road,
Sakinaka Andheri (East ) Mumbai,
Rep.by its Director,
Sri.Kishen Khanna.
(By Sri.A.P., Advocate)
2 O.S.No.7988/2012
Date of institution
of the suit : 09-11-2012
Nature of the suit : Recovery of money
[suit on pronote, suit
for declaration and
possession, suit
for injunction]
Date of the commencement
of recording of the evidence: 07-01-2014
Date on which the
Judgment was pronounced : 04-01-2019
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total Duration 06 01 25
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,94,665/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of suit till the date of payment and such other reliefs.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case are that :
The plaintiff is manufacturing and exporting Men's Wear Garments under the name and style "Radiant Global Tech Solutions" at Bangalore, the defendant is a company registered under the Companies Act, the defendant is a well 3 O.S.No.7988/2012 known company known in the industry circle, and the defendant is functioning as a commission agent for textile and garment exporters, the plaintiff has been transacting with the defendant since from 2007 in capacity, the defendant had approached the plaintiff in June 2010 and had placed an order to do production of 35,000/- pieces of ready made garments/men's formal shirts.
In furtherance of the said order, the defendant had made available to the plaintiff polyester cotton shirting fabric to make a sample, the sample was manufactured and presented to the defendant on the July 2010, after the presentation of the sample, there was no communication from the defendant for almost one month, after one month the defendant contacted the plaintiff again and asked the plaintiff to make a sample to get final approval from the buyer, again another fabric sample was given, for the 2nd time was entirely different than the first sample and it was 100% polyester, the fabric given for the second time was very slippery and it was difficult to handle, which resulted in slow productivity, the plaintiff with great difficulty made one sample and dispatched it to the defendant on 21.08.2010, as according to the defendant they had to go to Malaysia on 22.8.2010 and show it to their client and get the approval, subsequently the defendant had made available 100% polyester fabric to the plaintiff for manufacturing 4 O.S.No.7988/2012 10,000/- shirts, the fabric was entrusted on 3-9-2010 through J.K.Transport on 3-9-2010 and on 10-09-2010 by Shanthilal and Company.
According to the plaintiff there is a business procedure that payment for transport of the goods for job working at the factory is done by the exporter, the defendant however did not make the payment, the plaintiff on the assurance made by the defendant to reimburse the amount towards transport and job working had paid the amount towards the said work on behalf of the defendant, the defendant promised to reimburse the payment made by the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant by adding the cost in the job work rate per garment, the plaintiff and defendant had a mutual discussion with regard to the rate to be fixed and after long discussion as per handling of 100% polyester fabric was different and difficult task, the plaintiff had agreed to do the job at the rate of Rs.85/- per garment considering the quantity to be 35,000/- pieces (10,000/- pieces in 100% polyester fabric) 25,000/- pieces in cotton polyester fabric). All other charges like charges for embroidery packing materials, transport and courier are required to be paid by the defendant. on the assurance of the defendant that the price and all the other connected materials are settled, the defendant had assured that the plaintiff need not worry about the rate and payment and 5 O.S.No.7988/2012 also that the payment would be made promptly, after getting approval for 5,100/- pieces on 20.09.2010 the plaintiff started the production of readymade garments on behalf of the defendant on 1-10-2010, the quality control Inspector attached to the defendant had inspected the production and had approved the quality of production, even the Director of the defendant company had visited the factory of the plaintiff in Bangalore and approved the production.
Further the plaintiff submits that, the plaintiff director of the defendant had assured for payment etc. The Director of the defendant had also made silent visit of the Director of the defendant had also make silent visit of the plaintiff and had once again inspected ongoing production of garments and had fully satisfied about the quality of production, the production was completed in the 1st week of November 2010, after completion of production the plaintiff had intimated the defendant, the defendant had asked the plaintiff to send packing list and upon defendants instruction plaintiff was supposed to send finished product to Chennai Port through Gokulraj Transport so as to enable the defendant to export the same, thereafter the defendant did not make any communication with the plaintiff for about a month, the plaintiff was repeatedly requesting the defendant to make the payment so that the plaintiff will be 6 O.S.No.7988/2012 in a position to send the goods. In the first week of December 2010 the defendant requested the plaintiff but the defendant did not tried to make any payment nor give any instruction, the plaintiff had cooperated with the defendant and sent all details as sought for and dispatched finished goods as per the instruction of the plaintiff to their forwarding agent at Chennai so to enable the plaintiff to export the goods.
Further plaintiff submits that in the 1st week of December 2010, subsequently the defendant informed the plaintiff that they are not interested in the job work of further production and to give him the list of balance fabric which according to the defendant was required for repacking and dispatching, the plaintiff pointed out the plaintiff unilaterally has reduced the quantity from 35,000 pieces to 5,100 pieces, the quality of fabrication was also changed, the working rate per piece due to change of order quantity and the quality of fabric would be Rs.140/- which included the factory expense embroidery cost, packing materials cost and transportation cost, the plaintiff made repeated demands with the defendant to take back their fabric and pay the amounts due to the plaintiff, it is pertinent to point out that the defendant had made payment of Rs.25,838/- on 23.10.2010, Rs.1,02,900/- on 6.12.2010, Rs.8,580/- on 16.12.2010 and Rs.98,000/- on 7 O.S.No.7988/2012 5.1.2011, they had manufactured 5,100/- pieces of garments on behalf of the defendant and the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs7,21,000/- towards the value of the goods manufactured and supplied by the plaintiff, out of Rs.7,21,000/- the defendant had made only part payment of Rs.2,35,318/-, the defendant did not lift balance fabric nor did they make further payment for goods manufactured by the plaintiff, there was absolutely no response from the defendant and they were not interested in taking the goods, the defendants having received the benefit of the work done by the plaintiff is liable to pay the amount to the plaintiff without any bargain, the amounts due to the plaintiff are morefully detailed in the schedule here below, the defendant is liable to pay interest at 18% per annum on the outstanding balance from 5.1.2011 till the date of suit, with future interest as prayed, hence he prayed for decree the suit.
3. In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendant appeared through his counsel filed detail written statement denying the plaint averment as false and inter alia contending that, one of the Director's husband was in indenting business and was having regular business deal with the plaintiff, at one of such point of time, the plaintiff had been at Mr.Kishen Khanna's office at the same place where the defendant is having his registered office, at the 8 O.S.No.7988/2012 same time, one of the Director Mr.Gurdeepsingh Bhatia came there and was informing Mr.Kishen Khanna of having an Export Order of production of 35,000 pieces of ready made garments/forma shirts provided importer approves the quality of the first 10,000/- piece of readymade garments/formal shirts. The plaintiff agreed to place an order of first 10,000 pieces of readymade garments/men's shirts to the plaintiff with an assurance that if the order is delivered in time and found of a good quality, after getting the order from Importer at Malaysia the defendant placed first order to the plaintiff thereby they ordered for 10,000 shirts, out of which 5,000 shirt sleeves and 5000/- full sleeves shirts standard pack which was supplied by the plaintiff within 45 days from the date of receiving all the raw materials, the same was delivered within 90 days from the acceptance of the order, the plaintiff agreed to deliver the goods in time i.e. within 45 days with the quality as per sample shown.
According to the defendant the orders those have been received by the defendant to the tune of 4000 to 5000 shirts, but the plaintiff did not supply the shirts within 45 days as promised by him, the defendant contact and asked the reasons for delay, the plaintiff has initially avoided giving proper reply, thereafter gave lame excuse like shortage of labours, strike of labours etc, thereafter the 9 O.S.No.7988/2012 plaintiff avoiding the picking up the calls of the defendant, finally the representative of the defendant personally went to the Bangalore Office in order to find out the delay in delivery of the goods, and the plaintiff assured and promise that the goods will be delivered within 10 to 15 days to the defendant, thereafter the defendant received a delivery of 510 short sleeves shirts from the plaintiff, but the defendant was stunned when he saw the quality of the shirts, as substandard and poor quality material goods, the plaintiff cheated the defendant by supplying inferior quality product with poor workmanship, thereafter the defendant called the plaintiff and told him to take delivery backs as it was not as per the order, hence the plaintiff is estoppel by the act and promise. Hence he prayed for dismiss the suit.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings, materials and documents, my predecessor in office has framed the following issues:
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that it has supplied readymade shirts to the defendant and the defendant is due for a sum of Rs.3,10,490/-
along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. for a sum of Rs.1,60,657/-?
10 O.S.No.7988/20122. Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiff has supplied materials of sub-standard and it caused substantial loss to the defendant ?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as sought for?
4. What order or decree?
5. In order to prove these issues, the Proprietor of the plaintiff has examined as P.W.1 and got marked 8 documents as Ex.P1 to P-8 the then Manager of the plaintiff's firm is examined as P.W.2 and no documents got marked as exhibits and closed his side of evidence, on the other hand Director of the defendant company is examined as D.W.1 and no documents got marked as exhibits. And close the side of the defendants evidence, and case is posted for arguments.
6. Heard the arguments on both sides, the learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendants have filed their respective written arguments, learned counsel for the defendants has relied the following citations.
1. Supreme Court of India Criminal Appeal No.874-875/2012
2. Supreme Court cases 237/2014 Civil Appeal No.1168/2007 11 O.S.No.7988/2012
3. Supreme Court Cases 739 (2015) Civil Appeal No.9048/2014
4. High Court of Bombay in S.A.No.437/2008
7. My answers on the above issues are as follows :
Issue No.1 : Partly in the affirmative,
Issue No.2 : In the negative,
Issue No.3 : Partly in the affirmative,
Issue No.4 : As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
8. ISSUE No.1 TO 3: These issues are interlinked, hence, to avoid the repetition of the same facts, I have discussed these issues simultaneously for my common consideration.
9. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff is manufacturing and exporting Men's Wear Garments under the name and style "Radiant Global Tech Solutions" at Bangalore, the said concern is a proprietary concern of the plaintiff, the defendant is a company registered under the Companies Act, the defendant is a well known company known in the industry circle, the defendant is functioning as a commission agent for textile and 12 O.S.No.7988/2012 garment exporters, the plaintiff has been transacting with the defendant since the year 2007 in defendants capacity as a commission agent, the defendant had approached the plaintiff and had proposed to sometime in June 2010 and had placed an order to do production of 35,000/- pieces of ready made garments/men's formal shirts for meeting the defendant' export orders from his clients. The order for manufacture of 35,000/- pieces of ready made garment/s men's s formal shirt was placed by the defendant at the factory of the plaintiff at Bangalore.
It is further case of the plaintiff is that, in furtherance of the order placed by the defendant with the plaintiff , the defendant had made available to the plaintiff polyester cotton shirting fabric to make a sample, the sample was manufactured and presented to the defendant on the July 2010, after the presentation of the sample, there was no communication from the defendant for almost one month, after one month the defendant contacted the plaintiff again and once again asked the plaintiff to make a sample to get final approval from the buyer, again another fabric sample was given, the fabric sample given for the 2nd time was entirely different than the first sample and it was 100% polyester, the fabric given for the second time was very slippery and it was difficult to handle, this has resulted in slow productivity, the plaintiff with great difficulty made one 13 O.S.No.7988/2012 sample and dispatched it to the defendant on 21.08.2010, the sample was sent to the defendant by Jet Cargo on priority basis as according to the defendant they had to go to Malaysia on 22.8.2010 and show it to their client and get the approval, It is further case of the plaintiff is that the defendant had made available 100% polyester fabric to the plaintiff for manufacturing 10,000/- shirts, the fabric was entrusted on 3-9-2010 through J.K.Transport on 3-9-2010 and on 10-09- 2010 by Shanthilal and Company, there is a business procedure that payment for transport of the goods for job working at the factory is done by the exporter, the defendant however did not make the payment, the plaintiff on the assurance made by the defendant to reimburse the amount towards transport and job working had paid the amount towards the said work on behalf of the defendant, the defendant promised to reimburse the payment made by the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant by adding the cost in the job work rate per garment, the plaintiff and defendant had a mutual discussion with regard to the rate to be fixed and after long discussion as per handling of 100% polyester fabric was different and difficult task, the plaintiff had agreed to do the job at the rate of Rs.85/- per garment considering the quantity to be 35,000/- pieces (10,000/- pieces in 100% polyester fabric) 25,000/- pieces in cotton 14 O.S.No.7988/2012 polyester fabric). All other charges like charges for embroidery packing materials, transport and courier are required to be paid by the defendant.
Further it is the case of the plaintiff is that, on the assurance of the defendant that the price and all the other connected materials are settled, the defendant had assured that the plaintiff need not worry about the rate and payment and also that the payment would be made promptly, after getting approval for 5,100/- pieces on 20.09.2010 the plaintiff started the production of readymade garments on behalf of the defendant on 1-10- 2010, the quality control Inspector attached to the defendant had inspected the production and had approved the quality of production, even the Director of the defendant company had visited the factory of the plaintiff in Bangalore and approved the production, the plaintiff director of the defendant had assured for payment etc. The Director of the defendant had also made silent visit of the Director of the defendant had also make silent visit of the plaintiff and had once again inspected ongoing production of garments and had fully satisfied about the quality of production, the production was completed in the 1st week of November 2010, after completion of production the plaintiff had intimated the defendant, the defendant had asked the plaintiff to send packing list and upon defendants 15 O.S.No.7988/2012 instruction plaintiff was supposed to send finished product to Chennai Port through Gokulraj Transport so as to enable the defendant to export the same, thereafter the defendant did not make any communication with the plaintiff for about a month, the plaintiff was repeatedly requesting the defendant to make the payment so that the plaintiff will be in a position to send the goods, that the terms agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant provides that the defendant had to make the payment before delivery of goods or consignment of the carriers.
According to the plaintiff in the first week of December 2010 the defendant requested the plaintiff once again furnish complete packing list of the gods to be exported so that the defendant will be in a position to obtain necessary documents for export of goods of the defendant, conveniently the defendant did not tried to make any payment nor give any instruction to start of further production from their side, the plaintiff had cooperated with the defendant and sent all details as sought for and dispatched finished goods as per the instruction of the plaintiff to their forwarding agent at Chennai so to enable the plaintiff to export the goods in the 1st week of December 2010, subsequently the defendant informed the plaintiff that they are not interested in the job work of further production and to give him the list of balance fabric 16 O.S.No.7988/2012 which according to the defendant was required for repacking and dispatching, the plaintiff pointed out the plaintiff unilaterally has reduced the quantity from 35,000 pieces to 5,100 pieces, the quality of fabrication was also changed, the working rate per piece due to change of order quantity and the quality of fabric would be Rs.140/- which included the factory expense embroidery cost, packing materials cost and transportation cost, the plaintiff made repeated demands with the defendant to take back their fabric and pay the amounts due to the plaintiff.
It is pertinent to point out that the defendant had made payment of Rs25,838/- on 23.10.2010, Rs.1,02,900/- on 6.12.2010, Rs.8,580/- on 16.12.2010 and Rs.98,000/- on 5.1.2011, they had manufactured 5,100/- pieces of garments on behalf of the defendant and the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs7,21,000/- towards the value of the goods manufactured and supplied by the plaintiff, out of Rs.7,21,000/- the defendant had made only part payment of Rs.2,35,318/-, the defendant did not lift balance fabric nor did they make further payment for goods manufactured by the plaintiff, there was absolutely no response from the defendant and they were not interested in taking the goods, the defendants having received the benefit of the work done by the plaintiff is liable to pay the amount to the plaintiff without any 17 O.S.No.7988/2012 bargain, the amounts due to the plaintiff are morefully detailed in the schedule here below, the defendant is liable to pay interest at 18% per annum on the outstanding balance from 5.1.2011 till the date of suit, the defendant is also due to pay future interest at 18% per annum from the date of suit till the date of payment as transaction in question is a commercial transaction, inspite of repeated demands and legal notice the defendant failed to clear the balance amount.
10. It is the specific case of the defendant that, one of the Director's husband was in indenting business and was having regular business deal with the plaintiff, at one of such point of time, the plaintiff had been at Mr.Kishen Khanna's office at the same place where the defendant is having his registered office, at the same time, one of the Director Mr.Gurdeepsingh Bhatia came there and was informing Mr.Kishen Khanna of having an Export Order of production of 35,000 pieces of ready made garments/forma shirts provided importer approves the quality of the first 10,000/- piece of readymade garments/formal shirts. The plaintiff agreed to place an order of first 10,000 pieces of readymade garments/men's shirts to the plaintiff with an assurance that if the order is delivered in time and found of a good quality, after getting the order from Importer at Malaysia the defendant placed first order to the plaintiff 18 O.S.No.7988/2012 thereby they ordered for 10,000 shirts, out of which 5,000 shirt sleeves and 5000/- full sleeves shirts standard pack which was supplied by the plaintiff within 45 days from the date of receiving all the raw materials, the same was delivered within 90 days from the acceptance of the order, the plaintiff agreed to deliver the goods in time i.e. within 45 days with the quality as per sample shown.
Infact the orders those have been received by the defendant to the tune of 4000 to 5000 shirts, but the plaintiff did not supply the shirts within 45 days as promised by him, the defendant contact and asked the reasons for delay, the plaintiff has initially avoided giving proper reply, thereafter gave lame excuse like shortage of labours, strike of labours etc, thereafter the plaintiff avoiding the picking up the calls of the defendant, finally the representative of the defendant personally went to the Bangalore Office in order to find out the delay in delivery of the goods, and the plaintiff assured and promise that the goods will be delivered within 10 to 15 days to the defendant, thereafter the defendant received a delivery of 510 short sleeves shirts from the plaintiff, but the defendant was stunned when he saw the quality of the shirts, as substandard and poor quality material goods, the plaintiff cheated the defendant by supplying inferior quality product with poor workmanship, thereafter the defendant 19 O.S.No.7988/2012 called the plaintiff and told him to take delivery backs as it was not as per the order, hence the plaintiff is estoppel by the act and promise.
11. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, plaintiff has filed his sworn affidavit in lieu of the chief- examination as P.W.1, wherein he has reiterated the same contents, which he has narrated in his plaint, hence, in order to avoid repetition of the same facts, I have not discussed once again. In support of his oral evidence he has produced 8 documents as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-8 for the sake of convenience I have summarized these documents as Ex.P-1 & 2 are the e-mail correspondence, Ex.P-3 & 4 are the job work invoices, Ex.P-5 is the commercial Invoice, Ex.P-6 is the Cash cum credit voucher, Ex.P-7 is the Legal Notice, Ex.P-8 is the returned postal cover
12. On the other hand in order to disprove the case, the Proprietor of the defendant company has filed sworn affidavit in lieu of the chief-examination as D.W.1, and has prayed time for further evidence, and further evidence of D.W.1 has deferred, subsequently inspite of taking sufficient opportunity has not adduced his evidence, hence his further evidence is taken as nil, subsequently the defendant has filed IA.No.9 to lead his further evidence, however the said IA was came to be allowed on 26.2.2018 20 O.S.No.7988/2012 directing the defendant to complete his further evidence on 8.3.2018 without fail. On that day also the defendant has not complied the order dt.26.2.2018, and not availed the said chance, and not produced any documents and got marked as exhibits.
13. The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant for recovery of amount of Rs.4,94,665/- along with interest. It is not disputed by the defendant that towards manufacture of 510 pieces of garments worth a sum of Rs.7,21,800/-, it is also admitted fact that the defendant has made a sum of Rs.2,35,340/- as part payment towards the said garments. The dispute between the parties is that the plaintiff has supplied substandard materials and not all match with the sample pieces provided by the plaintiff to the defendant, though the raw material provided by the defendant was a best quality, the workmanship i.e. used by the plaintiff was below standard and that was the reason why the goods supplied by the plaintiff was of poor quality. So for as this aspect is concerned, though the defendant has filed written statement, and also filed the chief examination as D.W.1, but has not produced and got it marked any of the documents, in order to show that the supply of the materials by the plaintiff were not at all matching with the sample pieces , and not the product of the raw materials 21 O.S.No.7988/2012 supplied by the defendant. since the d.w.1 was not fully examined, and his chief examination itself was deferred, and when he was not subjected to the cross examination , therefore the evidence of the D.W.1 is not sufficient to prove the contentions raised by him regarding substandard of materials supplied by the plaintiff.
14. During the cross examination of P.W.1 has stated that, it is true that for the first time the defendant company placed order for sample on 9.7.2010, it is true that on 9.7.2010 the defendant gave fabric for manufacture of 10,000 shirts. It is true that on 9.7.2010 the defendant placed the orders in its name. It is false to suggest that the customers of the Malaysia the customer of defendant refused to purchase the readymade shirts supplied by him, though the P.W.1 has denied that the customers of the Malaysia customer of defendant refused to purchase the readymade shirt supplied by him, but has not produced any documents to show that the Malaysian customers refused to purchase the readymade shirts. Further the P.W.1 has stated that, it is false to suggest that, he has unilaterally fixed the rate at Rs.140 per shirt, it is true that there is no agreement between him and defendant regarding price of shirt as Rs.140/-. Admittedly there is no agreement regarding price of shirts as Rs.140/- between the plaintiff and defendant, when there is no agreement in respect of 22 O.S.No.7988/2012 this price of shirts as Rs.140/-, which is nothing but the rate fixed is unilaterally.
15. Further, in the cross examination of P.W.1 has stated that, it is true that since the readymade shirts supplied to the customers of defendant which is of inferior quality the rate of each shirt was reduced to Rs.60/-. The plaintiff has not produced any document to show that the quality of the shirt is inferior quality, and so for as access the said quality, whether the plaintiff had applied any test, or obtained any expert opinion, in the absence of such material evidence, it clearly goes to show that the reduction of rate in respect of each shirt from 85/- to Rs.60/- is no base at all. If the quality of the shirts are inferior quality, the most the plaintiff has to return the same to the defendant, or before fixing the rate at the rate of Rs.60/- he would have intimate the same to the defendant. In the instant case the plaintiff has not produced any documents to show that he has intimated the inferior quality of the shirts to the defendant or reduce the rate of the shirt from 85/- to Rs.60/-, is also not intimated to the defendant. further the P.W.1 has admitted in his cross examination that, it is true to suggest that he never issued any notice in the name of defendant company demanding to take back the raw materials, it is true that he sold the balance raw material without the permission of the defendant company.
23 O.S.No.7988/2012When such being the admission made by the P.W.1 it clearly goes to show that the act of the plaintiff is not only unilaterally, it is an arbitrary.
16. In the suggestion made by the defendant to the P.W.1, that it is false that he has sold the raw materials of defendant at a lower price than the market price. It is true that if a shirt is of Rs.85/- it runs to Rs.4,35,500/-. When the P.W.1 has clearly admits that, if the plaintiff sold the said shirt is of Rs.85/- it runs to Rs.4,35,500/-, since the act of the plaintiff as discussed in the supra paras is unilaterally, arbitrary, definitely which caused loss to the defendant as the same is without the knowledge of the plaintiff, since the reduction of rate of the shirt as the quality of the shirt is inferior, without any base or report by the competent person or the authority. The P.W.1 further admits that, it is true that he has received a sum of Rs.4,10,410/- and it is false that since he has already received 4,10,410/-, the defendant is not liable to pay any amount, and it is false that, due to the inferior quality of the shirts the price of each shirt was fixed at Rs.60/-, and hence he liable to pay Rs.1,04,410/-.
17. On taking into consideration of the above admissions and evidence of the P.W.1, admittedly the plaintiff received a sum of Rs.4,10,410/-, since the plaintiff 24 O.S.No.7988/2012 claimed a sum of Rs.7,21,800/-, out of which the defendant paid part payment for a sum of Rs.2,35,540/- on different dates ie. on 23.10.2010, 6.12.2012, 16.12.2010, 5.1.2011. the plaintiff has calculated the interest after deducting a sum of Rs.2,35,340/- in Rs.7,21,800/- which comes to Rs.4,86,460/-. The plaintiff claimed the interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on 4,86,460/- from 5.1.2011 to 19.5.2012 i.e. last date of payment of Rs.98,000/- on 5.1.2011 i.e. Rs.163,657/-, and the rate of interest as per the Ex.P-3 the interest of 24% charged for payment not made within 10 days of billing date, however the plaintiff has calculated the rate of interest 18% p.a. in the plaint, therefore the interest if restricted to 18% p.a. only, as such the total amount calculated is Rs.4,86,460 + 1,63,657 is comes Rs.6,50,117/- and in the said amount the plaintiff has deducted a sum of Rs.1,75,970/- in respect of the selling the fabric on 1.12.2005. It comes to Rs.4,74,147/-, and the plaintiff accrued interest from 20-05-2012 to 30-09-2012 a sum of Rs.20,518/-, the total claim is comes Rs.4,94,665/-. But the P.W.1 has sold the shirt at the rate of Rs.60/-, and further has state that it is true that if a shirt is of Rs.85/- it runs to Rs.4,35,500/-. As already discussed in the supra paras the act of reduction of price of a shirt by the plaintiff is arbitrary and unilaterally, therefore it is necessary to deduct a sum of Rs.4,35,500/- instead of 1,75,970/-. If an amount of Rs.4,35,500/- was deducted, it comes 25 O.S.No.7988/2012 Rs.2,59,030/-, and the said amount is to be deducted in Rs.3,10,490/- which comes Rs.50,960/-, and interest calculated by the plaintiff at the rate of 18% from 20.5.2012 to 30.9.2012 which comes Rs.3,311/-, therefore the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.54,271/-. Therefore the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.54,271/-. I have carefully gone through the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the defendant i.e.
1) Supreme Court of India Criminal Appeal No.874- 875/2012, 2) Supreme Court cases 237/2014 Civil Appeal No.1168/2007, 3) Supreme Court Cases 739 (2015) Civil Appeal No.9048/2014, 4) High Court of Bombay in S.A.No.437/2008, since the facts and circumstances involved in this case and the principles involved in the supra decisions are entirely different from each other, therefore with due respect to the above said citations which are not applicable to the present case in hand, as such the plaintiff is entitled the relief in part, hence I answer issue No.1 and 3 are partly in the affirmative, and issue No.2 is answered in the negative.
18. ISSUE No.4: In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
26 O.S.No.7988/2012ORDER The Suit of the plaintiff is decreed in part with costs.
The defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.54,271/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the suit till its realization.
Draw the decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the judgment writer directly on computer, corrected by me and then pronounced by me in the open court, on this 4th day of January, 2019).
(G.A.MULIMANI) XIV Addl. City Civil Judge Bangalore.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiff/s:
P.W.1 : Hiren Chandrana P.W.2 : Mr.Chandrashekar
List of documents exhibited on behalf of plaintiff/s:
Ex.P-1 & 2 : e-mail correspondence
Ex.P-3 & 4 : The job work invoices
Ex.P-5 : Commercial Invoice
27 O.S.No.7988/2012
Ex.P-6 : Cash cum credit voucher
Ex.P-7 : Legal Notice
Ex.P-8 : Returned postal cover
List of witnesses examined on behalf of defendant/s:
D.W.1 : Kishen Khanna List of documents exhibited on behalf of defendant/s:
-Nil-
XIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE
BANGALORE
Digitally signed by
GOLLALAPPA AYYAPPA
MULIMANI
DN: cn=GOLLALAPPA
GOLLALAPPA AYYAPPA
MULIMANI,ou=HIGH
AYYAPPA COURT OF
KARNATAKA,o=GOVERN
MULIMANI MENT OF
KARNATAKA,st=Karnatak
a,c=IN
Date: 2019.01.05 13:46:52
IST