Bangalore District Court
M/S Escorts Ltd vs Bangalore Electricity Supply on 25 October, 2017
IN THE COURT OF XVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (C.C.H.16)
Dated this 25th Day of October, 2017
Present: Sri. R. Ravi,
B.Sc., LL.B.
XVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge.
O.S.No. 3421/2012
Plaintiff/s : M/s Escorts Ltd.,
A Company incorporated and
Registered under the provisions
of the Companies Act, 1956,
Plot No.219, Sector 58,
Ballabgarh,
Faridabad District - 121 004,
Haryana, India,
Rep. by its Business Manager
And duly Authorized Officer
Sri. Vinod Babu
[By Sri. Ganesh Bhat Y.H., Adv.]
-Vs-
Defendant/s : Bangalore Electricity Supply
Company Ltd.,
4th Floor, Corporate Office,
BESCOM, K.R. Circle,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
Rep. by its Managing Director
[By Sri. P.P., Adv.]
Date of institution of the suit 21.4.2012
Nature of the suit Declaration & Injunction
Date of commencement of 25.4.2016
recording the evidence
Date on which the judgment 25.10.2017
was pronounced
2 OS.No.3421/2012
Total duration Years Months Days
05 06 04
(R. Ravi),
XVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge.
************
JUDGMENT
This is a suit for declaration and for recovery of money.
2. The case of the plaintiff company is that, it is incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business activities of manufacturing of road material handling and construction equipments such as cranes, excavators etc. The defendant is also a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the commercial activities of supply of electricity and is an undertaking of the Government of Karnataka. The further case of the plaintiff is that pursuant to Tender Notification vide T.O. Enquiry No.BESCOM/GM[E] Proc/BC-10/BCP-241/LOT-1/2007-08 for supply of Truck Mounted Hydraulic Articulated Mobile Cranes issued by the defendant, the plaintiff had submitted its bid to supply 'Escorts-Fassi' models of truck Mounted Hydraulic Articulated Mobile Cranes in collaboration with M/s Fassi of Italy and it being the successful bidder was issued with the 3 OS.No.3421/2012 purchase order No.830/2007-08 dated 09.10.2007 for supply of 8 numbers of Truck Mounted Hydraulic Articulated Mobile Cranes having lifting movement of 15 TM with lifting capacity 3 MT at 5m radius and 2 numbers of Truck Mounted Hydraulic Articulated Mobile Cranes having lifting movement of 25 TM with lifting capacity 5 MT at 5m radius and per the terms of the said purchase order, the defendant had agreed to pay 10% payment through the Deputy General Manager [Ele.], BESCOM, Central Stores, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru - 560 010 against delivery of cranes and material acknowledgment statement from consignee stores. Further under the terms of the said purchase order, the supply and delivery of the ordered quantity of the cranes within the stipulated delivery schedule mentioned therein as well as the right to impose penalty and other penal consequences for late delivery shall be subject 'Force Majeure' clause. The terms of the said purchase order for the purpose of the said contract entered into by the defendant with the plaintiff defined 'Force Majeure' to mean 'an event which could not reasonably have been avoided by a diligent party in the circumstances, which is beyond the reasonable control of a party and which makes a party's performance of its responsibilities there under impossible, in the circumstance and includes, but is not 4 OS.No.3421/2012 limited to war, riots, civil disorder, earthquakes, lockouts or other industrial actions, electrical failure, confiscation or any other actions by Government agencies'. When that is so, the plaintiff could not supply and deliver the ordered quantity of the cranes within the stipulated delivery schedule mentioned in the purchase order on account of events of delay in supply of equipments by its principals M/s Fassi-Italy and the unfortunate demise of the Managing Director of its long time vendor of chassis required for the ordered cranes, which are events beyond the reasonable control of the plaintiff and further on account of industrial action of shifting of its plant and machinery as well as the entire manufacturing unit to the new premises by the plaintiff which is an event that could not reasonably been avoided at the given time and the circumstances. The aforesaid events covered under the 'Force Majeure' clause in the contract, though in turn, delayed the performance of its responsibilities, the plaintiff by its letter dated 30.07.2008 offered 2 numbers of Truck Mounted Hydraulic Articulated Mobile Cranes for inspection and the said cranes were inspected on 13.9.2008 by the defendant. Subsequent thereto as requested by BESCOM vide letter dated 31.10.2008, the plaintiff had supplied the said cranes to the consignees i.e., EEE, CO&M Division, Yelahanka and 5 OS.No.3421/2012 EEE, CO&M Division, Ramanagara vide Invoice bearing No.DL/10 dated 24 December, 2008 and Invoice bearing No.DL/09 dated 24 December, 2008. The defendant had taken delivery of the said cranes and is using the same in its operations. Further in continuation to the supply of cranes as aforesaid, the plaintiff by its letter dated 29.1.2009 offered another 2 numbers of Truck Mounted Hydraulic Articulated Mobile Cranes and the said cranes were inspected on 16.3.2009 by the defendant. Subsequent thereto as requested by BESCOM vide letter dated 21.3.2009, the plaintiff had supplied the said cranes to the consignees i.e., DGM[EL] BESCOM Stores, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru and EEE, CO&M Division, Bangalore East Division vide Invoice bearing No.FBD T/24 dated 24 March, 2009 and Invoice bearing No.FBD T/23 dated 24 March, 2009. The defendant had taken delivery of the said cranes and is using the same in its operations. Further when the process of supply the 2 cranes referred in the proceeding was under way, by its letter dated 16.3.2009 the plaintiff intimated the defendant that balance 4 numbers of 15TM machines would be ready and offered for inspection on 27.3.2009 as they have the cranes F150 in stock and the chassis to mount them were also available at dealer point. The plaintiff had followed up the said letter with 6 OS.No.3421/2012 its letter dated 15.4.2009 wherein while it explained the true and factual events that resulted in delay of delivery of crane, submitted the inspection and delivery schedule to the defendant. In furtherance of its communication and sincerity to complete the supply of cranes, the purchase order placed by the defendant being for specialized equipments, the plaintiff had imported the said specialized equipments from Fassi of Italy and assembled with specific configurations at great investments, intimated the defendant its willingness to deliver the balance number of cranes. Further the defendant had accepted the aforementioned causes tendered by the plaintiff and thereafter had taken delivery of the 4 cranes, instead of considering the schedule for inspection and delivery offered by the plaintiff, in order to evade and wriggle out of its liability to pay the complete and full value of the cranes supplied by the plaintiff, vide Official Memorandum bearing reference No.GMEP/DGMEP/AGMP3/BC-10/F-451 dated 30.4.2009 illegally short closed the purchase order dated 9.10.2007 aforementioned to an extent of supplies made as on 15.4.2009 and further illegally (1) levied penalty as per the original delivery schedule of the purchase order (2) recovered security deposit to an extent of 5% of the contract value (3) forfeited the EMD amount of Rs.50,000/- paid vide 7 OS.No.3421/2012 receipt No.049 dated 30.8.2007 and (4) resolved to recover an amount of Rs.28,37,530/- out of running bills towards alleged risk purchase. Further though for the reasons mentioned in its letter dated 14.5.2009 the plaintiff had requested the defendant to allow it to perform its part of the contract, the defendant that earlier short closed the purchase order, by its letter dated 28.7.2010 instructed the plaintiff to renew the Bank guarantee No.00070100005148 dated 17.4.2010 for Rs.5,33,860 furnished towards security deposit for further period of one year from 30.9.2010 and thereafter illegally invoked the said Bank guarantee and illegally realized the said sum of Rs.5,33,860/- on 31.12.2010. Further the defendant had illegally short closed the purchase order, has made only part payment of Rs.23,80,230 on 22.11.2009 and Rs.39,89,560 on 15.12.2012 towards part of the sale value of the four cranes sold and supplied by the plaintiff and failed to pay the balance amount of sale value in a sum of Rs.42,09,000/- and to pay the sum of Rs.5,33,860/- illegally realized by it by invoking the bank guarantee aforementioned. Thus, the defendant is illegally retaining in all a principal sum of Rs.47,42,860/- due and payable to the plaintiff and as such the plaintiff company is 8 OS.No.3421/2012 constrained to file this suit for recovery of Rs.58,55,503/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a.
3. On the other hand, the defendant has filed his written statement and denied the suit of the plaintiff and further raised a preliminary objection that since the plaintiff has sought for declaration of the Official Memorandum bearing No.GMEP/DGMEP/AGMP3/BC-10/F-451 dated 30.4.2009 as illegal and unjust then this court cannot adjudicate on this subject matter as it does not have the jurisdiction to do so and the plaintiff has also not paid sufficient court fees. The defendant further contended that it is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, carrying on the business of supplying quality electricity to its customers and it issued a Tender Notification vide T.O.Enquiry No.BESCOM/GME Proc/BC-10/BCP-241/LOT- 1/2007-08 for supply of Truck Mounted Hydraulic Articulated Mobile Cranes and the plaintiff participated in the bid and being the successful bidder was issued with the purchase order bearing No.830/2007-08 dated 9.10.2007 for supplying 8 numbers of Truck Mounted Hydraulic Articulated Mobile Cranes having lifting movement of 15 TM with lifting capacity 3 MT at 5m radius and 2 numbers of 9 OS.No.3421/2012 Truck Mounted Hydraulic Articulated Mobile Cranes having lifting movement of 25 TM with lifting capacity 5 MT at 5m radius and as per the terms of the purchase order dated 9.10.2007, the defendant also agreed to make payment of the entire amount against delivery of the aforementioned Cranes and materials and as per the purchase order dated 9.10.2007 the plaintiff ought to have supplied the above said cranes by March 2008. After a lot of persuasion form the office of the defendant vide its letter dated 25.3.2008 and 9.4.2008 the plaintiff offered 2 numbers 15 TM Cranes for inspection during July, 2008, that is much later than the delivery period. The plaintiff's premises were inspected by DGM [TA & QC] during September, 2008 and the delivery instructions were issued on 31.10.2008 and in spite of the same plaintiff failed to supply a single unit of crane as per the purchase order till December, 2008 and consequently on 10.12.2008 defendant issued another reminder to the plaintiff to supply the cranes immediately and pursuant to this plaintiff supplied 2 numbers of 15 TM cranes, one each to Ramanagar and Yelahanka during January, 2009. The first assignment itself supplied by the plaintiff was after lapse of 1 year of the actual delivery date as agreed between the plaintiff and defendant and hence there was an unexplained delay on the 10 OS.No.3421/2012 part of the plaintiff in making delivery of the cranes. Pursuant to this the defendant was called upon to inspect two more 15 TM cranes and the same was inspected on 16.3.2009 and 17.3.2009 and consequently dispatch instruments were given on 21.3.2009. In the meanwhile vide its letter dated 16.3.2009 the plaintiff informed the defendant that 4 numbers of 15 TM cranes were ready for inspection on 27.3.2009 and on 30.3.2009 the DGM [MM & I] of defendant company inspected the premises of the plaintiff company and found that one of the cranes were actually ready for inspection. Thereafter the plaintiff vide its letter dated 15.4.2009 informed the defendant that the delay in supply of the cranes as per the purchase order is due to delayed supply of equipment by M/s FASSI, Italy following by the shifting of their factory premises. As the plaintiff failed to supply the quantity of cranes ordered by the defendant and only supplied 4 numbers of 15 TM cranes as against 8 numbers of them and 2 numbers of 25 TM Hydraulic Cranes, the defendant was left with no other alternative but to take penal action on 30.4.2009 under clause 20.0 of the purchase order dated 9.10.2007, thereby issuing an order to short close the purchase order for non-supply of ordered quantity of Hydraulic Cranes. There is no illegality in short closing the 11 OS.No.3421/2012 contract between the plaintiff and the defendant as there was an unexplained delay on the part of the plaintiff in supplying the material sought for by defendant as per the purchase order, there is a lapse on the part of the plaintiff. Thus the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts from this Court and filed this suit with a malafide intention to extort the money at the cost of the defendant and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. On the basis of the pleadings, one of my learned predecessor had framed 6 issues on 19.8.2014, but on perusal of the above pleadings I found that issue No.3 with regard to the jurisdiction requires to be recasted and accordingly the same is done by me and thus the following issues : -
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that, memorandum No.GMEP/DGMEP/ AGMP3/BC-10/F-451 dated 30.4.2009 is illegal?
2) Whether the defendant proves that, there was delay in supplying materials?
3) Whether the defendant proves that, this court has no jurisdiction to try the suit?
4) Whether the defendant proves that, the suit is not properly valued and court fee paid is insufficient?
5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief as sought for?12 OS.No.3421/2012
6) What order or decree?
5. In order to prove the above issues, the plaintiff company has got examined its Area Service Manager as PW.1 and also got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P27. On the other hand, the defendant company has examined its Assistant General Manager as DW.1 and no documents are marked and thereafter the matter was posted for arguments.
6. And I have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the entire materials placed on record.
7. And my findings on the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1: In the affirmative Issue No.2: In the affirmative Issue No.3: In the negative Issue No.4: In the negative Issue No.5: In the affirmative Issue No.6: As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
8. Issue No.1 to 5:- Since these issues are inter- related then they are hereby discussed commonly in order to avoid repetition of facts.
9. On perusal of the materials placed on record by both the parties I found that it is an admitted fact by both 13 OS.No.3421/2012 the parties that plaintiff company is incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business activities of manufacturing of road material handling and construction equipments such as cranes, excavators etc. The defendant is also a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the commercial activities of supply of electricity and is an undertaking of the Government of Karnataka.
10. It is also an admitted fact by both the parties that pursuant to Tender Notification vide T.O. Enquiry No.BESCOM/GM[E] Proc/BC-10/BCP-241/LOT-1/2007-08 for supply of Truck Mounted Hydraulic Articulated Mobile Cranes issued by the defendant, the plaintiff had submitted its bid to supply 'Escorts-Fassi' models of truck Mounted Hydraulic Articulated Mobile Cranes in collaboration with M/s Fassi of Italy and it being the successful bidder was issued with the purchase order No.830/2007-08 dated 09.10.2007 for supply of 8 numbers of Truck Mounted Hydraulic Articulated Mobile Cranes having lifting movement of 15 TM with lifting capacity 3 MT at 5m radius and 2 numbers of Truck Mounted Hydraulic Articulated Mobile 14 OS.No.3421/2012 Cranes having lifting movement of 25 TM with lifting capacity 5 MT at 5m radius.
11. It is also an admitted fact by both the parties that as per the terms of the said purchase order, the defendant had agreed to pay 100% payment through the Deputy General Manager [Ele.], BESCOM, Central Stores, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru - 560 010 against delivery of cranes and material acknowledgment statement from consignee stores. Further under the terms of the said purchase order, the supply and delivery of the ordered quantity of the cranes within the stipulated delivery schedule mentioned therein as well as the right to impose penalty and other penal consequences for late delivery shall be subject 'Force Majeure' clause.
12. And now in order to prove the other contentions of the plaint, the plaintiff company has got examined its Area Service Manager as PW.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P27, wherein it clearly proved that the plaintiff company could not supply and deliver the ordered quantity of the cranes within the stipulated delivery schedule mentioned in the purchase order on account of events of delay in supply of equipments by its principals M/s Fassi-Italy and the unfortunate demise of the Managing Director of its long time 15 OS.No.3421/2012 vendor of chassis required for the ordered cranes, which are events beyond the reasonable control of the plaintiff and further on account of industrial action of shifting of its plant and machinery as well as the entire manufacturing unit to the new premises by the plaintiff which is an event that could not reasonably been avoided at the given time and the circumstances and the aforesaid events covered under the 'Force Majeure' clause in the contract.
13. And it further proved that the defendant had accepted the aforementioned causes tendered by the plaintiff and thereafter had taken delivery of the 4 cranes, but in order to evade and wriggle out of its liability to pay the complete and full value of the cranes supplied by the plaintiff, the defendant company vide Official Memorandum bearing reference No.GMEP/DGMEP/AGMP3/BC-10/F-451 dated 30.4.2009 illegally short closed the purchase order dated 9.10.2007 aforementioned to an extent of supplies made as on 15.4.2009 and further illegally (1) levied penalty as per the original delivery schedule of the purchase order (2) recovered security deposit to an extent of 5% of the contract value (3) forfeited the EMD amount of Rs.50,000/- paid vide receipt No.049 dated 30.8.2007 and (4) resolved to recover an 16 OS.No.3421/2012 amount of Rs.28,37,530/- out of running bills towards alleged risk purchase.
14. Even though the plaintiff's witness/PW.1 was thoroughly cross-examined by the defendant still nothing worthwhile has been elicited to discard the oral and documentary evidence of the plaintiff that are placed on record.
15. On the other hand, though the defendant has contended that the plaintiff company has failed to supply the quantity of cranes ordered by the defendant within the stipulated time and only supplied 4 numbers of 15 TM cranes as against 8 numbers of them and 2 numbers of 25 TM Hydraulic Cranes and hence it was left with no other alternative but to take penal action on 30.4.2009 under clause 20.0 of the purchase order dated 9.10.2007 and thereby issued an order to short close the purchase order for non-supply of ordered quantity of Hydraulic Cranes and there is no illegality in short closing the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant is concerned, the same do not hold any water as the above facts are not at all proved by the defendant with cogent material evidence.
17 OS.No.3421/2012
16. Even though the defendant company has got examined its Assistant General Manager as DW.1, the same is of no help to the case of the defendant as contrary to their contention the said defendant's witness/DW.1 at page-10 and 11 of his cross-examination has clearly admitted that as per the Ex.P10 the defendant company has inspected 2 cranes during September 2008 and as per Ex.P10 they have told the plaintiff company to install the above said 2 cranes to their units at Ramanagar and Yelahanka and accordingly the plaintiff company has supplied the above said 2 cranes with concerned documents and as per Ex.P15 during the month of March 2009 they have inspected another 2 cranes of plaintiff's company and after the inspection of the same the plaintiff company has supplied the said 2 cranes and as such the defendant company are using the above said 4 cranes.
17. And even with regard to the 'Force Majeure' conditions also the said defendant's witness/DW.1 at page- 12 of his cross-examination has clearly admitted that the plaintiff company has intimated the defendant company that due to the strike of the employees in the Italian company the plaintiff company is unable to supply the above said cranes within the time limit and the plaintiff company has also 18 OS.No.3421/2012 intimated the defendant company that during the year 2009 the company of the plaintiff is shifted and further admitted that the clause-11 of Ex.P9 is in conformity with the above said Force Meajeure conditions.
18. And thus the above material admission of defendant's witness/DW.1 and also the admitted pleadings of the defendant clearly shows that the time limit was never intended to be treated as essence of the contract by the parties and if that is so the defendant company is not entitled to cancel the order and the cancellation cannot be treated to be valid in the eye of law.
19. And even otherwise since the defendant company has accepted the delivery of the cranes even after the period prescribed in the purchase order not treating the time as constituting the essence of contract then they are not at all competent to cancel the purchase order vide Official Memorandum bearing reference No.GMEP/DGMEP/AGMP3/BC-10/F-451 dated 30.4.2009.
20. And the above view of mine find support from section 55 of the Indian Contract Act, which clearly says as below :-
19 OS.No.3421/2012
"Section 55. - Effect of failure to perform at fixed time, in contract in which time is essential - When party to a contract promises to do a certain thing at or before a specified time, or certain things at or before specified times, and fails to do any such thing at or before the specified time, the contract, or so much of it as has not been performed, becomes voidable at the option of the promisee, if the intention of the parties was that time should be of the essence of the contract. Effect of such failure when time is not essential - If it was not the intention of the parties that time should be of the essence of the contract, the contract does not become voidable by the failure to do such thing at or before the specified time; but the promise is entitled to compensation from the promisor for any loss occasioned tohim by such failure. Effect of acceptance of performance at time other than that agreed upon - If, in case of a contract voidable on account of the promisor's failure to perform his promise at the time agreed, the promise accepts performance of such promise at any time other than that agreed, the promise cannot claim compensation for any loss occasioned by the non-performance of the promise at the time agreed, unless, at the time of such acceptance, he gives notice to the promisor of his intention to do so."
21. And further though the defendant company has taken up a preliminary objection that this court has no jurisdiction to try this matter and also contended that the suit is not properly valued and the court fee paid is insufficient are concerned, the same do not hold any water as the above facts are not at all proved by them with cogent material evidence.
20 OS.No.3421/2012
22. And in fact on the above point the plaintiff company has also relied upon a ruling of AIR 1977 A.P. 172 wherein also it has been clearly held that, "Since the suit was filed against electricity board and not against the officers then the same is not at all barred by section 12 and 82 of the Electricity [Supply] Act, 1948".
23. And with regard to the 'time factor' also in the above ruling of AIR 1977 A.P. 172 it has been clearly held that, "Contract Act [9 of 1872] Section 55 - Time, whether essence of contract - Commercial transaction depends upon the intention of parties - To be gathered from various circumstances - Held, on facts and circumstances of the case time was not the essence of the contract".
24. And at para-20 of the above dictum the facts and circumstances was clearly distinguished and held as below :-
"For the foregoing reasons agreeing with the court below, I am of the opinion that the time was never intended to be treated as the essence of the contract by the parties. If that is so, the Board is not entitled to cancel the order and the cancellation cannot be treated to be valid in the eye of law. It is therefore, a case where the Board accepted the delivery of the goods even after the period prescribed in the purchase order not treating the time as constituting the essence of the contract and, therefore, they are not competent to cancel the purchase order."21 OS.No.3421/2012
25. So in view of the above dictum and the discussion made above, I am of the opinion that since the plaintiff has clearly proved that the defendant company has accepted the delivery of the cranes even after the period prescribed in the purchase order not treating the time as constituting the essence of contract then as per Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act they are not at all competent to cancel the purchase order through the Memorandum No.GMEP/DGMEP/ AGMP3/BC-10/F-451 dated 30.4.2009 and so also not entitled to illegally levy penalty as per the original delivery schedule of the purchase order and recover security deposit to an extent of 5% of the contract value and forfeit the EMD amount of Rs.50,000/- paid vide receipt No.049 dated 30.8.2007 and also to recover an amount of Rs.28,37,530/- out of running bills towards alleged risk purchase. Even though the defendant has proved that there was delay in supplying the materials by the plaintiff company still the defendant company is not entitled to cancel the purchase order as the defendant company has accepted the delivery of the cranes even after the period prescribed in the purchase order not treating the time as constituting the essence of contract and thus the cancellation cannot be treated to be valid in the eye of law. And further since the 22 OS.No.3421/2012 defendant has failed to prove that this court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and further failed to prove that the suit of the plaintiff is not properly valued and the court fee paid is insufficient and since the plaintiff has clearly proved that it has intimated the defendant company that due to the strike of the employees in the Italian company the plaintiff company is unable to supply the above said cranes within the time limit and has also intimated the defendant company that during the year 2009 the company of the plaintiff is shifted and since the defendant's witness/DW.1 has clearly admitted in his cross-examination that the clause-11 of Ex.P9 is in conformity with the above said Force Majeure conditions then the plaintiff company is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for and accordingly I have answered issue No.1 and 2 in the affirmative, issue No.3 and 4 in the negative and issue No.5 in the affirmative.
26. Issue No.6:- In view of the discussion made on issue No.1 to 5 and further holding issue No.1 and 2 in the affirmative, issue No.3 and 4 in the negative and issue No.5 in the affirmative, I proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff for declaration and consequential relief of recovery of money is hereby decreed with cost.23 OS.No.3421/2012
And It is further decreed and declared that the Official Memorandum bearing reference No. GMEP/DGMEP/AGMP3/BC-10/F-451 dated 30.4.2009 issued by the Defendant short closing the purchase order dated 9.10.2007 aforementioned to an extent of supplies made as on 15.4.2009 [4 Nos. of 15TM Cranes], levying penalty as per the original delivery schedule of the purchase order, recovering security deposit to an extent of 5% of the contract value, forfeiting the EMD amount of Rs.50,000/- paid vide receipt No.049 dated 30.8.2007, recovering an amount of Rs.28,37,530/- out of running bills towards alleged risk purchase, as unjust and illegal.
And The defendant company is directed to pay a sum of Rs.58,55,503/- to the plaintiff with current and future interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on the principal sum of Rs.47,42,860/-from the date of suit till the date of realization.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the judgment writer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 25th day of October, 2017).
(R. Ravi), XVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
24 OS.No.3421/2012ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for plaintiff:
P.W.1 Sridhar Ramachandran List of documents exhibited for plaintiff:
Ex.P1 Board resolution
Ex.P2 Authorization letter
Ex.P3 Registration and License to work
Ex.P4 Original Renewal License
Ex.P5 to 7 Letters
Ex.P8 Certified copy of the Order in Company
Petition No.60/2012
Ex.P9 Purchase order
Ex.P10 Inspection report
Ex.P11 Letter
Ex.P12 & 13 Copies of tax invoices
Ex.P14 Office copy of the letter
Ex.P15 Inspection report
Ex.P16 Letter of the defendant
Ex.P17 & 18 2 Invoices
Ex.P19 Copy of the letter
Ex.P20 Office Memorandum of the defendant
Ex.P21 Office copy of the letter
Ex.P22 & 23 2 Letters of the defendant
Ex.P24 Ledger extract
Ex.P25 Copy of the review notice
Ex.P26 Reply
Ex.P27 Authority letter
25 OS.No.3421/2012
List of witnesses examined for defendant:
DW.1 N.Pavan Kumar List of documents exhibited for defendant:
Nil XVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.