Patsons Packing & Shipping ... vs Central Cottage Industries ...
1996 Latest Caselaw 561 Del

JUDGMENT

K. Ramamoorthy, J.

(1) The plaintiff has filed the suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,03,008.40. The details given by the plaintiff in para 16 is as follows: I)The amount due on account of Bills submitted for work done upto 10th February, 1982. Rs. 49,458.40 ii) The amount representing the work which the Plaintiff firm would have completed and for which was entitled to claim packing charges, etc. during the notice period of one month beginning from 10th February. 1982 Rs. 35,000.00 iii) Value of tools, equipments, raw materials, etc., taken over/lost by the Defendant Corporation Rs. 18,550.00 Total Rs.1,03,008.40

(2) The first defendant is M/s Central Cottage Industries Corporation of India, Ltd. and second and third defendants are officers of the first defendant in view of the fact that the point lies in a very narrow compass and it is not necessary to rely on the pleadings of the parties. There was a contract between the parties evidenced by Exhibit D-1/1 dated 23rd July 1981 with effect from 1st August 1981. That is with reference to the Packing of material to be supplied by the first defendant for export to places outside Delhi. The period mentioned in the contract is two years. The plaintiff is entitled to some remuneration depending upon the work entrusted to by the first defendant.

(3) Within four months from the date of Agreement, the first defendant started receiving complaints from various persons as evidenced by Public Witness 1/D1 dated 26.11.1981, Pw 1/D2 dated 4.12.1981, DWI/3 dated 7.1.1982, and DWI/4 dated 19.1.1982 which were communicated to the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not make any efforts to meet these complaints. Eventually on 6.2.1982 Ex. D 1/5 the Contract was terminated by the first defendant with effect from 10.2.1982.

(4) The claim as I have mentioned above by the plaintiff is for the work done evidence by the bill submitted, according to the plaintiff, it is Rs.35,000.00 as one month notice was not given by the first defendant and towards the value of the material mentioned.

(5) The case of the first defendant is that the first defendant is engaged in a very important business activities. The action of the plaintiff made position of the first defendant is very difficult and the first defendant was losing its business and in spite of the notice the plaintiff did not improve and the first defendant had no other option but to terminate the Contract.

(6) The plaintiff himself as a Public Witness -1 and examined Public Witness -2 to Public Witness -4. Public Witness -2 is Mr.Jitender Suri who was a person supply the materials to the plaintiff. Public Witness -3 is Mr. Jai Pal stated to be an employee of the defendant in the year 1981-82. Public Witness -4 is Mr.Chattar Singh is stated to be working as packer-carpenter with the plaintiff in the year 1981-82. I have gone through the evidence of these witnesses and I do not find any material which is relevant to the point.

(7) The first defendant examined Mr. A.R. Bhalla, working as Assistant Manager of Defendant No. I Corporation. At the time of giving evidence on 1982 he was working as Supervisor. He has stated in his evidence how the first defendant entered upon the transaction between the Contractor and how the materials were entrusted to the plaintiff in packing and shipping goods and he has also proved the documents tendered in evidence by the first defendant. The plaintiff has not proved in the cross-examination of Public Witness -I from which we can say that the first defendant was not Justified in terminating the contract.

(8) Public Witness -I the plaintiff admits the execution of the Agreement, according to him, he had done the packing and other items of work in terms of the contract and he had submitted bills to the first defendant who in turn used to forward the same to the Accounts Department of the first defendant. He states in the cross-examination that the Corporation did not point out at any time that his work was not satisfactory but at once he would admit the receipt of letter Public Witness I/D1, and Public Witness 1/D2 later on he would state that the contents of those letters are not correct. A reading of the evidence of PW-1 shows that he is not prepared to tell us the truth that there is absolutely no material produced by the plaintiff to substantiate his claim made in the plaint.

(9) The learned counsel appearing for the defendants brought to my notice the relevant Clause of the Agreement. Clause 1 and Clause 21 and brought to my notice the various documents and also the oral evidence produced. On a perusal of the documents produced by the plaintiff and the oral evidence as stated above, and the documents produced by the first defendant and the evidence given by DW-1 the conclusion is irresistible that the termination of the contract was fully justified and the plaintiff cannot challenge the same.

(10) Therefore I am not able to accept the case of the plaintiff that the termination of the contract by the first defendant is illegal and consequently the plaintiff is entitled to an amount claimed in para 16 of the plaint.

(11) On 19.11.1984 this court has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the alleged termination of agreement between the parties dated 23.7.1981 by the letter dated 6.2.1982 of the defendant was illegal and invalid? if so, to what effect. 0.P.P. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any amount on account of the bills submitted for the work done upto 10th February, 1982? O.P.P 3. Whether any equipment, tools, machinery or raw material belonging to the plaintiff was taken over, used, lost or removed by the defendant from the rooms given by the defendant to the plaintiff for purposes of executing the work as per agreement dated 23.7.1981? if so, to what amount, if any, is the plaintiff entitled in that regard? O.P.P. 4. Relief.

(11) On Issue No.1 I find that the termination of the contract on 6.2.1982 (Exhibit Dl/5) is legal and valid and this issue is answered accordingly.

(12) On Issue No.2, the plaintiff is not entitled to any amount and this issue answered against the plaintiff.

(13) On Issue No.3, I find the plaintiff has not established that any equipments or tools arc lying with the defendants. Dw 1 has admitted that the typewriter was lying with the custody of the defendants and the first defendant has already ready and willing to handover the typewriter but the plaintiff did not come and take away the typewriter. In view of the fact, that the first defendant is prepared to give back the typewriter to the plaintiff, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff only with reference to the typewriter and answered against the plaintiff with reference to other items.

 (14) There shall be a decree directing;    I)the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff claiming a sum of 1.03,008.04; II) directing the parties to bear their own respective costs; III) directing the first defendant to hand over the typewriter to the plaintiff within eight weeks from today in as is where is condition.