Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.42,13,419/­ filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.

2. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that plaintiff is a Government company registered  under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of rendering consultancy services M/s Engineers India Ltd. Vs. Zoom Developers Pvt. Ltd.                               Page No.1 of 11 for setting up large scale projects, designing and consultancy in various   fields   including   engineering,   heavy   industry,   etc.   The defendant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. On 21.07.2008 the plaintiff received an e­mail from the defendant requesting the plaintiff to provide Techno Economic Feasibility Report (in short "TEFR") for setting up a integrated aluminimum complex   in   Orissa   and   requested   the   plaintiff   to   forward   its Techno Commercial proposal for preparation of TEFR for setting up   the   aluminimum   complex   in   Orissa.   On   04.08.2008,   the plaintiff   submitted   to   the   defendant   its   Techno   Commercial Proposal for preparation of the TEFR and as per clause 8 of the same, the plaintiff quoted its professional fees of Rs.47.60 lakhs. On 08.10.2008 an agreement was arrived whereunder the plaintiff agreed to provide TEFR for various segments of the projects viz. Recovery of ore from bauxite mines, alumina refinery, aluminium smelter, captive power plant etc. At the request of the defendant, the plaintiff agreed to reduce the lump sum price for its services by Rs.1.00 lakhs to Rs.46.60 lakhs. It was also agreed that the plaintiff shall stand committed and be bound to the agreed terms till   31.10.2008.   Pursuant   to   the   agreement   arrived   between   the parties, the plaintiff received a letter of intent (in short 'LOI') dated 10.10.2008 from the defendant requesting the plaintiff to provide TEFR as per the scope of service in the said LOI of the defendant. It was agreed that out of the total remunerations of the plaintiff, M/s Engineers India Ltd. Vs. Zoom Developers Pvt. Ltd.                               Page No.2 of 11 40% of the total lump sum price was payable as down payment alongwith LOI while the balance 60% of the lump sum payment was payable with 100% taxes and duties before the submission of the draft feasibility report. The balance fee was payable by the defendant to the plaintiff through an irrevocable letter of credit of a   bank   to   be   nominated   by   the   plaintiff.   On   receipt   of   40% payment of the total lump sum price, the plaintiff performed its part of the contract and prepared the feasibility report/TEFR. Vide its   e­mail   dated   11.08.2009   the   Metallurgy   Division   of   the plaintiff   intimated   the   defendant   of   the   readiness   of   the   draft report for the assignment. On 31.12.2008 the plaintiff raised upon the   defendnat   its   invoice   bearing   no.6983­HL­002   dated 31.12.2008 for a sum of Rs.31,41,585/­ towards the balance 60% of the professional remunerations as per agreed terms, so as to enable   the  plaintiff   to  issue   the  draft  report.  Vide  e­mail   dated 21.07.2009 the plaintiff informed the defendant that draft report was   lying   ready   for   issue.   It   is   averred   that   despite   several reminders   sent   by   the   plaintiff   to   the   defendant,   the   defendant failed   to   pay   the   balance   60%   of   the   plaintiff's   remunerations which, as per the agreed terms, was a condition precedent for the plaintiff to submit its draft TEFR to the defendant. It is averred that   the   defendant   is   liable   to   pay   to   the   plaintiff   the   balance amount   of   Rs.31,41,585/­   in   terms   of   the   invoice   dated 31.12.2008, mentioned above. Besides the above, the defendant is M/s Engineers India Ltd. Vs. Zoom Developers Pvt. Ltd.                               Page No.3 of 11 also   liable   to   immediately   deliver   to   the   plaintiff   the   TDS certificate   for   the   sum   of   Rs.2,15,722/­   or   in   lieu   thereof,   the amount of TDS. It is averred that a sum of Rs.42,13,419/­ is due and payable by the defendant which the defendant has failed to pay   despite   service   of   demand   notice   dated   10.03.2010.   The plaintiff has prayed the suit of the plaintiff be decreed.

3. Defendant   has   file   the   written   statement   and   has contested the suit. Defendant has taken preliminary objections ­ (i) that the present suit is not maintainable and (ii) that this court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. On merits, it is averred that there is neither any agreement between the parties nor there is any amount due to the plaintiff, as claimed in the suit. The defendant has denied that the various e­mails, allegedly sent by the   plaintiff   to   the   defendant.   It   is   specifically   denied   that   on 21.07.2008 an e­mail was sent to the plaintiff by the defendant to provide   TEFR,   as   alleged.   The   defendant   has   also   denied receiving   any   Techno   Commercial   Proposal   on   04.08.2008. However, the defendant has admitted that one or two meetings were held between the parties in the month of August/September, 2008.   The   defendant   has   also   denied   issuance   of   any   LOI,   as alleged. As regards payment of Rs.18,64,000/­ by the defendant to the   plaintiff,   the   defendant   has   taken   the   stand   that   the   said advance   payment   was   made   in   terms   of   discussions   and   oral instructions of the plaintiff. It is averred that no work was started M/s Engineers India Ltd. Vs. Zoom Developers Pvt. Ltd.                               Page No.4 of 11 by the plaintiff though the plaintiff was obliged to give it's final report within twelve weeks. It is averred that the plaintiff failed to provide   the   final   report   within   stipulated   time   scheduled   as discussed between the parties. The defendant has denied that the abovesaid payment was made by the defendant in pursuance to invoice dated 17.10.2008. All other allegations have been denied. Defendant has prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed.

M/s Engineers India Ltd. Vs. Zoom Developers Pvt. Ltd.                               Page No.5 of 11 OPP.

(v) Whether   the   plaintiff   is   entitled   to   a   decree   of   Rs.42,13,419/­ as claimed in suit? OPP.

(vi) Whether plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so, at what  rate and for which period? OPP.

(vii) Relief. 

6. Plaintiff   in   support   of   his   case   has   examined   Sh. K.G.K Patro as PW1 and Sh. Manish Chandra Pathak as PW2. They   have   deposed   on   the  lines   of   the   averments   made   in   the plaint.

14. From the testimony of PW1, it has been proved that the   total   remunerations   settled   between   the   parties   for   the preparation of TEFR was agreed at Rs.46.60 lakhs, out of which 40%   of   the   total   lump   sum   price/fee   was   payable   as   down payment along with the LOI, while the balance 60% of the lump M/s Engineers India Ltd. Vs. Zoom Developers Pvt. Ltd.                               Page No.9 of 11 sum   fee   was   payable   with   100%   taxes   and   duties   before   the submissions   of   the   draft   TEFR.   The   defendant   in   the   written statement   has   not   denied   the   payment   of   Rs.18,64,000/­   to   the plaintiff. The defendant has taken the stand that the said amount was paid as an advance payment in terms of the oral instructions by the plaintiff to start the work. However, no evidence has been led   by   the   defendant   to   prove   its   defence.   As   per   PW1,   the plaintiff raised its invoice for a sum of Rs.20,94,393/­ representing 40% of the lump sum price. Had there been no such agreement between the parties as deposed by PW1, the defendant would not have   made   a   payment   of   Rs.18,64,000/­   to   the   plaintiff.   No counter claim has been filed by the defendant to receive the said sum   from   the   plaintiff.   It   is   the   case   of   the   plaintiff   that   on receiving   the   abovesaid   payment,   the   plaintiff   proceeded   to prepare the TEFR. The plaintiff prepared the TEFR and raised the invoice   for   the   balance   60%   of   the   professional   remunerations amounting to Rs.31,41,585/­. It has been proved that the TEFR had been prepared by the plaintiff for the specific requirements of the   defendant   as   per   its   obligations   under   the   contract.   The plaintiff has produced before the court the said TEFR­Ex.PW1/18. The   TEFR   prepared   by   the   plaintiff   has   the   value   of   Rs.46.60 lakhs.   From   the  perusal   of   testimony   of   witnesses,   it   has   been proved   that   plaintiff   has   performed   its   part   of   the   obligations under   the   contract   for   preparing   TEFR.   The   defendant   has M/s Engineers India Ltd. Vs. Zoom Developers Pvt. Ltd.                               Page No.10 of 11 committed the breach of the contract by not making payment of the   balance   60%   of   the   price/lump   sum   fee   as   per   the   agreed terms.   Therefore,   the   plaintiff   is   entitled   to   a   decree   of Rs.42,13,419/­ as claimed in the plaint. Hence,  these issues are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.