Digipulse India Pvt. Ltd. vs J.K. Corp. Ltd.
2004 Latest Caselaw 1123 Del

JUDGMENT

H.R. Malhotra, J.

1. This order shall deal with an application of the plaintiff made under Order 24 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC seeking directions to the defendant company to deposit the amount in terms of Order 24 Rule 1 CPC.

2. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff company against the defendant company for recovery of sum of Rs.84,40,704.90 arising out of commercial transaction between the two. The plaintiff company is carrying on the business of trading, selling, exporting electrical and electronic goods and their components and also manufactures audio cassette tapes and supplies the tapes to various companies including Philips India Ltd.

3. The plaintiff company had entered into an agreement with the Philips India Ltd. agreeing to supply Magnetic Tapes for manufacture of audio cassette tapes of a specific requirement. The plaintiff company came to know that the defendant company was in the business of manufacture and supply of such Magnetic Tapes and, therefore, the plaintiff company approached the defendant for supply of Magnetic Tapes and it was specifically brought to the notice of the defendant company that the tapes should be Pilips grade Magnetic Tapes and, therefore, should be of high quality and standard. The defendant company assured the plaintiff of their commitments that the goods so supplied by the defendant to the plaintiff would meet the standards required by the hilips India Ltd. The defendant company supplied Audio Magnetic Tapes during the period December,1999-2000 and in turn the plaintiff company supplied them to Philips India Ltd. but to the utter dismay of the plaintiff company, Philips India Ltd. brought to the notice of the plaintiff company that Magnetic Tapes supplied by the defendant were of inferior quality and goods were returned to the plaintiff by Philips India Ltd. Immediately upon the receipt of the goods the plaintiff company informed the efendant on 24.3.2000 about the defects found in such goods and simultaneously the plaintiff company issued a debit note of a sum of Rs.5,92,960/- on 31.3.2000. Though despite such debit note the defendant company did not make adjustment for that su

4. The plaint then deals with the losses suffered by the plaintiff on account of defendant's negligence. It is further stated in the plaint that instead of giving credit regarding debit note, the defendant company sent a legal notice on 28.5.2001 to the plaintiff company calling upon them to pay a sum of Rs.45,78,228/- towards the price of the goods sold to the plaintiff which notice was replied by the plaintiff company reiterating their claim about the debit note. This is the case of the plaintiff in brief. The defendant filed written statement seriously contesting the claim of the plaintiff and also re- asserting about the fine quality of the goods supplied by them to the plaintiff and stated that claim of the plaintiff towards debit note was imaginary. The plaintiff instead of pursuing their case made instant application seeking directions to the defendant to deposit a sum of Rs.35,68,118/- which according to the plaintiff, the defendant cannot dispute such sum.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties on this aspect and have also looked into the provision of Order 24 Rule 1 CPC. Bare reading of Section 24 Rule 1 CPC and also the illustrations given below such provisions indicate that such provisions in fact are meant to be used by the defendant and not by the plaintiff. Order 24 Rule 1 CPC applies to the defendant. It is the defendant who has to have recourse to such provisions as the opening sentence of Order 24 Rule 1 CPC states that the defendant in any suit to recover a debt or damages may, at any stage of the suit, deposit in court such sum of money as he considers a satisfaction in full of the claim. This speaks about the volition act of the defendant and not by way of compulsion. In the in tant case, nowhere in the written statement, the defendant admits the claim of the plaintiff nor there is any indication in the written statement where from it can be gathered that it is a fit case where defendant should approach the court on his own for deposit of the sum which he considers satisfaction of the full of the claim. Defendant while filing written statement has assailed the averments of the plaint in entirety and rather put forth his own claim against the plaintiff. Therefore, to my mind, the provision of Order 24 Rule 1 CPC can have no applicability in the instant case. Plaintiff seems to have chosen wrong provision of law in applying to the court seeking directions to the defendants for deposit of the sum which according to the paintiff defendant cannot dispute. In fact, the defendants have disputed each and every claim of the plaintiff in their written statement and, therefore, this application has absolutely no substance and plaintiff cannot take advantage of such provisios, such provisions being not meant for the plaintiff but for the defendant. For all these reasons the application is without merits and needs to be dismissed. Dismissed as such.