Madras High Court
M/S.Ace Glass Containers Limited vs M/S.Chemical Range on 15 November, 2018
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 15.11.2018
Coram
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
A.S.(MD)No.129 of 2004
M/s.Ace Glass Containers Limited
(Formerly Owens Brockway (India) Limited
Thondamanatham
Vazhudavoor S.O
Pondicherry 605 502
W-27, Greater Kailash Part I
New Delhi 110 048 ..Appellant/5th Defendant
Vs.
1.M/s.Chemical Range
No.90, Narasimhapuram South
Karur 639 001
Represented by its Managing Partner ..Respondent/Plaintiff
2.M/s.Ballarpur Industries Ltd,Unit Pondicheery
Thondamanatham
Vazhudavoor S.O
Pondicherry 605 502
Represented by its General Manager ...Respondent/1st Defendant
3.M/s.Owens Bilt Ltd., Unit Pondicherry
Thondamanatham
Vazhudavoor S.O
Pondicherry 605 502
Represented by its General Manager ...Respondent/2nd Defendant
(Respondents 2 & 3 are given up)
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
Prayer:- The First Appeal has been filed under Section 96 of Civil
Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree, dated
13.11.2002 passed by the Sub Court, Karur, made in O.S.No.408 of
1995.
For appellant : Mr.T.Antony Arul Raj
For Sai Raaj Associate
For R1 : Mr.S.Anand Chandrasekar
M/s. Sarvabhuman Associates
JUDGMENT
The defendant, who suffered a decree for a sum of Rs.1,21,884/- with subsequent interest at 12% from 24.12.1994 to till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum, is on appeal.
2.The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court was that the plaintiff had supplied raw materials like quartz, feldspar, dolomite, calcite, silica etc., to the defendant on various dates. For the supply of said raw materials, the defendant had made certain payments, leaving a balance to the tune of Rs.5,76,867.99 as on 16.06.1995. According to the plaintiff, the defendant is liable to pay interest at the rate of Rs.7/- for every Rs.100/- per day for the http://www.judis.nic.in 3 belated payment.
3.The suit was resisted by the defendant contending that the defendant is liable only to the tune of Rs.67,421.79. It disputes the liability in respect of the remaining amount on the ground that the goods supplied were defective. The claim for interest was also denied.
4.The learned trial Judge after considering the evidence on record, concluded that the defendant had not informed the plaintiff with regard to defect in the goods. Therefore, it cannot claim that the plaintiff is not entitled to the value of the defective goods. Though the defendant produced certain documents to show that there are defects in the goods supplied by the plaintiff and the same was communicated to the plaintiff under Exhibits B1 to B3, the trial Court disbelieved the said documents on the ground that no proof of delivery of those documents to the plaintiff was available. The defendant did not produce any acknowledgement to show that Exhibits B1 to B3 were in fact served on the plaintiff. The trial Judge rejected the claim for the interest and finally concluded that the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,21,884/- with interest at http://www.judis.nic.in 4 12% from the date of liability i.e 24.12.1994 till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% till the date of realisation.
5.Aggrieved over the same, the defendant is on appeal.
6.Heard Mr.T.Antony Arul Raj, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.Anand Chandrasekar, learned counsel for the first respondent.
7.On perusal of records, oral and documentary evidence, I am unable to find any specific ground to interfere with the conclusion of the trial Court. The only substantial defence of the defendant was that the goods supplied were defective and the said fact was communicated to the plaintiff under Exhibits B1 to B3. The trial Judge has refused to believe the documents on the ground that no acknowledgment or receipt has been produced by the plaintiff. The receipt of the goods is admitted and the defendant admits its liability to the tune of Rs.67,421.79.
8.In the light of the above, I am unable to see any error in the Judgement of the trial Judge, when it concluded the defendant http://www.judis.nic.in 5 is liable to pay Rs.1,21,884/-. Hence, there is no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the first appeal is dismissed by confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.408 of 1995 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Karur.
9.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that soon after the decree, the defendant has paid the admitted amount of Rs.67,421.79 with interest as directed by the trial Court. Pursuant to the interim order of this Court, he has paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest to the credit of the suit. Considering the above said payments made by the defendant, I direct the parties to bear their respective costs in this appeal.
15.11.2018
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
msa
To
1.The Subordinate Judge
Karur
2.The Record Keeper,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
6
R.SUBRAMANIAN,J
msa
A.S.(MD)No.129 of 2004
15.11.2018
http://www.judis.nic.in