Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. The plaintiff in support of its contention relied upon the MoU dated 01.06.2011. It is apparent from the aforesaid pleadings that the goods were supplied to the plaintiff by defendant no. 1 company and there was contract between the plaintiff and defendant no. 1. The suit of the plaintiff is based on the MoU dated 01.06.2011 by which the plaintiff claims that defendant no. 1 admitted the supply of defective goods against the invoices and to pay a sum of Rs. 14,00,000/­ to the plaintiff towards compensation. The MoU dated 01.06.2011 is the basis of the present suit and it shows that same has been entered into by M/s SCJ Plastics Ltd. i.e. defendant no. 1 and the plaintiff in respect of three invoices bearing No. 04980 dated 08.01.2011, 04388 dated 03.12.2010 and 04315 dated 30.11.2010. Through these invoices the goods were supplied by defendant no. 1 to the plaintiff. Therefore, it is apparent that there is no cause of action against the defendant no. 2 to 6 as defendant no. 2 is a partnership firm of which the defendant no. 3 to 6 are the partners.

7. Though the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff argued that his case is not restricted to the defective goods but there is also another suit filed by the defendant no. 2, the firm and he states that defendant no. 2 being sister concern of defendant no. 1 are supplying the goods under the name of defendant no. 1 or under the name of defendant no.

2. The counsel for the plaintiff also argued that in the MoU dated 01.06.2011, there is reference of M/s SCJ and therefore it is not ascertainable as to whether this settlement was in respect of the goods supplied by defendant no. 1 or defendant no. 2 because the names of both the firms start with M/s SCJ. However, in my considered view, these contentions are without any merit. The specific case of the plaintiff is that the defendant no. 1 i.e. M/s SCJ Plastics Ltd. supplied the goods to the plaintiff vide invoices bearing no. 4980, 4388 and 4315 which were defective and pursuant to the MoU dated 01.06.2011, the defendant no. 1 had agreed to pay Rs. 14,00,000/­ towards the compensation. In the MoU dated 01.06.2011, again in the subject there is reference of three invoices and in the bottom of said MoU same has been accepted by M/s SCJ Plastics Ltd, the defendant no. 1. Therefore, defendant no. 2 to 6 have no role to play as they have neither supplied the goods to the plaintiff nor they have entered into any settlement with the plaintiff and therefore there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 to 6. If the defendant no. 2 has filed some case against the plaintiff in respect of some other transaction, then it would not make them as a necessary party in the present suit in which there is no cause of action and privity of contract. Hence, the application is allowed and there being no privity of contract between plaintiff and defendant no. 2 to 6, they are deleted from the array of the parties. 

Announced in open Court                                (Balwant Rai Bansal)
on 3rd November, 2014                Addl. District Judge ­02 (South­East)
                                                   Saket Courts, New Delhi







Amitex Polymers Pvt. Ltd.  Vs. SCJ Plastics Ltd.


03.11.2014 

Present: None

Vide my separate order of even date, application moved by the defendant no. 2 to 6 u/o 1 rule 10 CPC is allowed. Plaintiff is directed to file the amended memo of parties.