Karnataka High Court
M/S M M T C Ltd vs M/S Tan Leather Crafts on 10 August, 2010
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, B.Manohar
1 IN THE_HIGH COURT 0? KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 10"*nAx OF AUGUST, 2o1ofl'a PRESENT 'V THE HON'BLE M. JUSTECE K.L. MARJfi§§T3I aw AND THE HON'BLE M. JvsTIcE.fi;MANoH;N"' REGULAR FIRST APPEAL Na?:223/2do3P(MbN)" BETWEEN: M/s MMTC Ltd., :N P . ,_ _Nv_ (A Govt. of India Enterp:isa$),N_t"* having its regd, Office atv "fg Core--1, 'Scopa Qomplex*, 7~Institutiona1VArea;zjN° Lodi Road, New_né1h;;¢j . And having-its flonal Office at No.7, Chennai Hofiae,*EapIanade, Chennai. xR/by itslDepfity General Managgr<K;VisHwanathan .. AEPELLANT 5($y Aa§b¢atexsri.¢fM}nesa: & Sri.Arvind c Desai) x'W M/s Tan Laafihar Crafts, No.27} XII Cross, Annipurfi, 3; TTyyBangaloraF27. NV'$[by*its Managing Partner vmuptaflah. .. RESPONDENT
.o=o'_§By Advocate Sri.R.V.Srinivasa Reddy) fir/..
2 This Regular First Appeal is filed under Sec.96 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 16.6.2003 passed in O.S.No.7229/94 on the file of the .XX Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, decreeing the suit for recovery of money. fl'= This Appeal is coming on for final hearing this day, MANJUNATK J. delivered the followina_:_:" V The appellant is questioning the legality and> correctness of the judgmentiiV"'anc{_ decree. passed by XXX Addl. City Ciyii_Afiudge;ypbanga1ore dated 16.6.2003 in o..s.No.V,722.9;./9-a,..y_jippyeiiént was the defendantginhthe_suit.i;f
2. Respondent/plaintifr= instituted the suit for recovery of Rs S,8j,250/-- towards the value of the leather jackets supplied by the plaintiff to the tie defendant fer his export business and also for the 7_recovery.".of interest ' accrued thereon and wmisceilaneous expenditure incurred by him. ihigAceording to plaint averments, pursuant to the "l*u_pu§éhase order placed by the defendant, plaintiff §y, 3 agreed to supply leather jackets to the defendant to export the same to its customers at ;USAjFand later on an agreement was entered'= intc«"¥on. 5.12.1991. It was agreed that the payment §ee1a=te» ' made by the defendant to the plaihtiff*upon receipt of export proceedings from.his oversees clientfl In' terms of the agreement pplaintift "supplied 248 leather jackets to the defendent ge per invoice for a sum of US $ lQ;l68{;f' The yalue oi the jackets supplied by *thefl:plaihtif£: fies inot paid to the plaintiff by the defendant en the ground that the defendané has %§£é§§ fig geceive Payment frmm USA customers. xgOn_the1ground that the defendant has failed to pay the yalue of the cheque amounting to as 3;25,3j6/e," and interest from 7.12.1991 to h"_V6.1.1§94 ameunting to Rs.2,36,874/* and claiming a igpsum iofjg iRs.25,000/- towards miscellaneous =.expenditure, suit was instituted for recovery of d\iRs;$g85.250/~. Defendant contested the suit on the d'*._ gtetnd that the suit filed. by the jplaintiff was 6"
f*_ In order to pfoye their res?
4 barred by limitation and it was also contended by the defendant that plaintiff can claim money from the defendant only after the defendant money from USA customers and it is also the case of. V the defendant's purchasers did not pay the emodnt which compelled the defendang to file_d,§§Noil71/93f on the file of the high 'Jndicature at Madras and the suit his fnendfng. decision and requested the conrt to di%?iss the shit. Based on the above pleadinési'followin¢bissoes were framed:
1. Whether this conrt~has jurisdiction to try the suit? 7, °
2. Whether barred by limitation?
3. whether 'theh plaintiff proves that the ~ defendant is liable o pay the suit claim?
';§;_What*order or decree;;
iective contentions, on behalf of "the plaintiff, " plaintiff's partner 'eflfitthaiah was got examined as PW--1 and he relied .ri@_upony Es.P»1. On behalf of the defendant, one if*._ Vishnanathan was examined as DW--1 and. he relied 5 upon Exs.9--1 & 2. Trial iurt, after considering the evidence let in by the parties held issues 1 & 3 in the affirmative, issue No.2 ix: the negetiuev and ultimately suit of the pla.i.ntiff"'wa's.ildecreed'J' for a sum of Rs.5,62,250/w with costs"and simple interest at 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the"
date of realization of the séitfclainga Questioning the legality and correctness of the judgment of the trial court, present appeal is filedfil
4. Appellant*s Vcounsel" has raised 'the following grounds at the time of his arguments: According to Vhim, suit filedaby the plaintiff in Bangalore was fiithoutV.jurisdiction and plaintiff should have vfiled the suit only in the court of Chennai. He *, contends that the suit filed in the year 1994 was
-{barred by limitation and he lastly contends that f\ the interest awarded on the entire suit claim is l"»p bad" since plaintiff had claimed interest on E97, 6 Rs.3,25,376/-- in a sum of Rs,2,36,874/--, therefore awarding interest at Rs.2,35,874/~ is bad in law. In the circumstances, he requests thei court ego' allow 'the appeal and. set aside _the7 judgment, andtp"
decree of the trial court.3l fccunsel "for "the respondent Mr.Srinivasa ldReddyd~:supporting~3 the"
judgment of the trial courtrfrequesting the court to dismiss the aPPea1r"de.i
5. Having heard the counsel for the parties, what is to be considered by us in this appeal is:
1. Whetherr the _trial lcourtb was justified. in holding =that_ the' court of Bangalore had jurisdiction to entertain the suit?
2. Whether ,thefi suit claim was barred by _§limitation?
Whether the trial court is justified in n Bawarding interest on the interest claimed "_ by the plaintiff on the value of the goods V supplied by it?
"w d _l6L_*So far as the first point is concerned, ""{ admittedly plaintiff's company is situated in fiangalore. Goods are manufactured in Bangalore. 6/ 8
8. Admittedly, purchase agreement was entered into on 5.12.1981. Goods were dispatched on 7.i£}l991. Suit is instituted on 7.12.1991. Payment he; to he. made by the defendant after receipt of the péYmen£.y° frmn its customers. Therefore, there is zkfadate fixed for payment. Admittedly, defendant hes--filed9 the suit against its, custoners",in fHighV_&ourt of Madras as per Ex.P~1. usuit is filed on 6.12.1994. Even if the date of ettpiy is tekee es 7.12.1991, if the suit is filed 9% e.ié§i99é, suit has to be held well within three years,} Moreover, in terms of the agreement as per eg;9--2, the date of supply need not be taken_intQ account for the purpose of giiing ea xsuit fas_ the suit "can be filed. by the plaintiff *te "recover the ~value only when the
7._vdefendegt9'fai1s to pay the amount since the 9, defendant" has agreed to pay the amount to the 'eplaintiff" only after collecting value of the '>,articles from its USA customers. Therefore, suit (Ky-
9 I 3 filed by the plaintiff cannot be held to be barred by limitation.
9. So far as the question of awarding of intereet is concerned, admittedly in the plaint' itself l, plaintiff has claimed value of the jackets Supplied ' by the plaintiff at as 3,2S}376 an; yhe;iha§, calculated interest on then aforesaid' eum from 7.12.1991 to s.12.19§§_ at »fis;2}35,s74/», trial court has awarded. interest don. the réntire sum_ of Rs.5,62,250/--,iv fhereforey'_nef are' of 'the opinion that the; trial_ court ghas lcommitted an error in awarding Ainterest":on*Linterest of Rs.2,36,874/-. Accordingly, fie hold that the plaintiff is entitled =£§n5;aia interest at 12% p.a. only on the value of th§_"pjaaga§§"f at Rs.3,25,376/-- and not on d*~Rs.5,6g}25o};y7 ly1Q;"In_the result, the appeal is allowed in part. and decree of the trial court is hereby 'ffv_u confirmed except modifying the interest payable by {V
---»-
m the defendant to the plaintiff holding that the defendant/appellant is liable to pay intereetk at 12% on Rs.3,25,3'76/- from the date suit till the date of realisationi Pafties to heard A :1 their costs. r Amount if any in depoéit is ordered to be sent"
to the trial court.
IUDGE Sd/I:
IUDGE iii"--""R./:l80810