Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Thirdly, an amount of € 2,60,037 has been claimed against alleged defective packaging and cost of additional labeling incurred by the Appellant. It is the case of the Appellant that the packaging of the medicines supplied by the Respondent neither conformed to the requirements of INCOTEMS nor the mandatory requirements of the Standards of Weights & Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules and Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act. To conform with the requirements of the law, the Appellant was required to affix additional labels on the bottles and the outer packaging, for which the Appellant had to incur heavy costs. The learned Company Judge, while adjudicating on this claim, had perforce to refer to the correspondence made between the parties and not the Agreement because the learned Judge held the same to be inconsequential for this claim as the Agreement dated 24th June, 1998 stood expired by the efflux of time. It was further held that the parties had settled the claim at an amount of € 75,000 for the year 2002 and € 65,000/- for the year 2003. The claim for the year 2000 has been held to be time barred and that of the year 2004 to be an afterthought and not bona fide. The learned Judge only held claim of € 75,000/- for the year 2001 to be a genuine counterclaim. Fourthly, an amount of € 3,50,717.55 has been claimed towards the stock which, according to them, was bound to be purchased back by the Respondent as per Clause IX of the Agreement dated 24.06.1998 limited to three months requirement. The learned Company Judge has held that the first letter written by the Respondent company for repurchase was on 24th November, 2004, that is, after lapse of nearly eight months. Further, he held that neither in the letters nor in the pleadings the Respondent company has pointed out or stated "the three-months requirement" nor was any letter written within the three months period. Thus, the claim was ex facie not held to be valid and substantial. Fifthly, counterclaim of € 9,75,000 has been raised as a reimbursement of loss suffered by the Appellant on account of misdescription on the medicines supplied between the years 2003 and 2004 which wrongly indicated its manufacturing to be "made in Germany"