Calcutta High Court
Pabitra Kumar Basu & Anr vs The Calcutta Municipal Corporation on 23 February, 2015
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
C.S. No. 246 of 1999
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
Original Side
Pabitra Kumar Basu & Anr.
Vs.
The Calcutta Municipal Corporation
For the Plaintiffs : Mr. Soumak Mitra, Advocate
Mr. Debasish Purkait, Advocate
Mrs. Rita Sinha, Advocate
For the Defendant : Mr. Gopal Chandra Das, Advocate
Hearing concluded on : February 19, 2015
Judgment on : February 23, 2015
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.
The plaintiffs seek recovery of price of goods sold and delivered and refund of security deposits as well as interest on these two heads of claims from the defendant.
The plaintiffs claim to have responded to a tender floated by the defendant. The plaintiffs claim to have sold and delivered goods to defendant and to have put in security deposit with the defendant. The plaintiffs claim that they have raised seven bills on the defendant for an aggregate sum Rs.1,40,96,000/-. In spite of demands the defendant did not pay the same. The plaintiffs refer to a suit being C.S. No. 259 of 1998 filed by the defendant in the Court where the defendant claims a decree of declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to receive from the defendant a sum of Rs.31,55,740/-.
The defendant has filed a written statement denying the material allegations. The defendant contends that the plaintiffs have overcharged the defendant. The defendant admits the transactions. However, it disputes the value of the transaction. It claims that it had paid a sum of Rs.2,96,000/- and that a sum of Rs.31,55,740/- only remains payable by it to the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs have adduced evidence and have produced one witness who was examined and cross-examined. The defendant has produced one witness who in the course of examination-in-chief did not make himself available for further examination. The examination of the witness of the defendant was closed on February 19, 2015 for the reasons and under the circumstances as recorded in the Order dated February 19, 2015.
The issues that arise for consideration in the instant suit are as follows:-
(1) What is the amount receivable by the plaintiffs from the defendant on account of goods sold and delivered? (2) Are the plaintiffs entitled to refund of security deposit? (3) Are the plaintiffs entitled to any interest and if so, at what rate?
(4) What other reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled to?
The first two issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience.
The plaintiffs claim to have sold and delivered valves to the defendant. In its written statement the defendant acknowledges that valves were sold and delivered by the plaintiffs to the defendant. The defendant however claims that the plaintiffs have overcharged the defendant with regard to the value of the valves.
The plaintiffs have sold and delivered valves of the value of Rs.1,11,98,000/- and have raised value bills in respect thereon on the defendant. These bills are Exhibits 'I' in the suit.
The witness of the plaintiffs has stated in answer to question nos. 57 and 58 that the plaintiffs had received a sum of Rs.31 Lakhs and Rs.29 Lakhs from the defendant. The plaintiffs, therefore, have received a sum of Rs.60 Lakhs from the defendant in aggregate. The defendant has not established in evidence any other payment made by it to the plaintiffs.
Learned Counsel for the defendant has referred to a judgment and order dated February 22, 2002 passed in an appeal in this suit and submitted that, the other suit filed by the defendant and being prior to the point of time is required to be heard analogously with the present suit.
I have considered the judgment and order dated February 22, 2002 passed by the Hon'ble Appeal Court. The appeal was against a decree passed on the application for judgment on admission under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The suit was decreed for a sum of Rs.31,55,740/- on the basis of admission made by the defendant. The Appeal Court had dismissed the appeal. The decree for Rs.31,55,740/- passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant was upheld. The Appeal Court had allowed the defendant to raise the question of maintainability of the present suit and had allowed the Trial Court to decide such question in accordance with law, if raised.
The defendant did not press the maintainability of the suit in view of the pendency of the prior suit. In any event, there is no order of analogous hearing of the two suits. Further, both the suits involve the same issues that is to say, what is the entitlement of the plaintiffs from the defendant, if any.
The plaintiffs have established the value of the goods sold and delivered to be Rs.1,11,98,000/- and to have received a sum of Rs.60 lakhs from the defendant in respect thereof. The plaintiffs are, therefore, entitled to a sum of Rs.51,98,000/- from the defendant. The plaintiffs had already received a decree for Rs.31,55,740/- against the defendant. The plaintiff will therefore be entitled to a decree for Rs.20,42,340/- from the defendant on account of principal for the price of goods sold and delivered by the plaintiffs to the defendant.
The first issue is answered accordingly.
The claim of the plaintiffs for security deposit is substantiated by Exhibits 'L', 'M', 'N' and 'O'. The security deposit aggregate to Rs.2,61,522/-. There is no evidence on record on behalf of the defendant to establish that security deposit given by the plaintiffs was refunded to the plaintiffs.
In such circumstances, the second issue is answered by holding that the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for Rs.2,61,522/- against the defendant on account of security deposit.
The third issue revolves around the question of interest and its rate. The nature of transaction between the parties is commercial. The plaintiffs will therefore be entitled to interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum on and from the date of filing of the suit in respect of the sum of Rs.20,42,340/- as well as Rs.2,61,522/- until realization from the defendant. Such rate of interest is awarded in view of the commercial nature of the transactions and the fact that nationalized banks charge interest at rates not less than the aforesaid rate in respect of commercial transactions.
The third issue is answered accordingly.
On the fourth issue I find that the plaintiffs have put in a court- fees of Rs.10,000/-. The plaintiffs will be entitled to costs of the suit assessed at Rs.20,000/-.
The fourth issue is answered by holding that the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for Rs.20,000/- as costs against the defendant.
C.S. No. 246 of 1999 is decreed in terms as aforesaid. The department is directed to draw up and complete the decree expeditiously.
[DEBANGSU BASAK, J.]