Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.19 seconds)Section 9 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Amin & Co. vs Southern Roadways Ltd., Madurai on 25 January, 1984
CT 1390_Com.O.S.6694-2007_Judgment.doc
KABC170036762022
D5 which is the consignment note it shows that, the said
material was dispatched through lorry transporter only on
10-07-2007 after inordinate delay since the order was placed
on 29-05-2007. He further submitted that the original
consignment note was with the defendant No. 1 since the
same is produced as Ex. D5 and relied upon ruling of Hon'ble
Madras High Court in the case of Amin & Co. v. Southern
Roadways Ltd. reported in A.I.R. 1985 Madras 287 to
contend that, it is only the person who has the original
consignment note who can take delivery of the material and
when the original consignment note was never handed over to
the plaintiff, there was no question of plaintiff receiving
delivery of the same and therefore he argued that, the delay in
dispatch coupled with sending the material through lorry
without furnishing the consignment note to the plaintiff was a
ploy on the part of defendant No. 1 to somehow destroy the
training centre of the plaintiff. Per contra, the case of
defendant No. 1 is that, it was at the insistence of plaintiff
that the course material was dispatched through lorry
transporter instead of the regular courier agency which was
44
CT 1390_Com.O.S.6694-2007_Judgment.doc
KABC170036762022
being used to supply the course material earlier and this was
because plaintiff suspected a collusion between defendant No.
1 and courier agency on the ground that the courier agency is
charging exorbitant amount. However, it is not necessary for
this court to enter into the controversy as to whether there
was deliberate delay on the part of defendant No. 1 in
dispatching the course material or whether the delay was due
to the act of the plaintiff in seeking alternative mode of
dispatch for the simple reason that, admittedly, this relief of
mandatory injunction to direct plaintiff to supply the course
material has become infructuous. This is because,
admittedly, the training centre of the plaintiff was closed
down after the incident of rioting by the students which
destroyed the entire training centre. Thereafter, the students
who were enrolled with the plaintiff have been admitted and
serviced in the successor franchisee of defendant No. 2.
Therefore, at this point of time, there is no question of
granting relief of mandatory injunction directing the
defendant No. 1 to supply course material to the plaintiff.
Therefore, since the said relief has become infructuous, there
45
CT 1390_Com.O.S.6694-2007_Judgment.doc
KABC170036762022
is no need for this court to enter into the discussion as to
whether there was delay in dispatching the said course
material.
1