Shellex Enterprises And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2007 Latest Caselaw 911 Del

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

1. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit against the defendants for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 27,01,213.51/- on account of goods stated to have been supplied to the defendants and incidental expenses.

2. Plaintiff No. 1 is stated to be a partnership firm of which plaintiffs 2-5 are stated to be partners. It is averred that by a letter number SC/4/87 dated 05.06.1987 (Exhibit P 1), the plaintiffs submitted quotations for the supply of furniture to the Navodya Vidyalaya to the defendants.

3. The plaintiffs claim that the defendants by their letter No. F. 2178/NV/87 dated 02.07.1987 (Ex. P 2) sought acceptance by the plaintiff of the terms and conditions mentioned in the letter. The terms and conditions are stated to have been accepted on behalf of plaintiff No. 1 vide a letter dated 05.07.1987 (Ex. P 3). The plaint also details the correspondence between the plaintiffs and the defendants. The plaintiffs claim to have supplied the goods as directed by the defendants to the various centres on various dates during the period 07.03.1988 to 10.06.1988.

4. It is averred that vide a letter No. F.N. 2178/NV/87-Schedule I dated 28.04.1988 (Exh. P 33), the defendants informed the plaintiffs that due to administrative reasons actual payments for the supplies made will be made only after a month or so with effect from 28.04.1988 and bills of the plaintiffs would be accepted only after 10.05.1988. Thereafter the defendants vide letter dated 17.05.1988 (Exh. P 34), informed the plaintiffs that delay in making payments towards the bills of the plaintiffs was only due to the fact that heads of accounts had not been finalized till then. Further by a letter dated 23.05.1988 (Ex. P 35), the defendants inquired the sales tax numbers allotted to the plaintiffs and a certificate as to the transporter utilized for the transport of goods to Chandigarh in connection with the payments to be made. This was replied to by the plaintiffs by a letter dated 24.05.1988 (Exhibit P 36). It is claimed that the defendants vide a letter dated 25.05.1988 (Ex. P 37) informed the plaintiffs that their bills would be processed only after the expiry of the said calendar month and the processing of the bills would take 10-15 days.

5. It is stated that thereafter, the plaintiffs addressed letters dated 7.06.1988; 17.06.1988, 20.06.1988 and 02.03.1989 (Exhibits P 38-41 respectively)to the defendants requesting early payment of the amounts due; submitting rent and labour bills and submitting the bills for supplies made respectively. The plaintiffs claim that the defendants did not reply to these letters and having no other alternative the plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 04.07.1989 (Exhibit P 42) claiming a sum of Rs. 25,05,790.70 along with interest at 21 per cent per annum w.e.f 1.07.1989.

6. The plaintiffs have thus, filed this suit for the recovery of Rs. 27,01,213.51 which includes the values of the goods supplied along with the sales tax; rent for godowns at Chandigarh and Hyderabad, Rent for the godown at Delhi for 10 months, Loading and uploading for goods supplied to Chandigarh and Hyderabad; interest on the value of goods supplied till 31.01.1990 and costs of the legal notice. The plaintiffs have also claimed interest at the rate of 21 per cent per annum and costs. In the alternative the plaintiffs have prayed that in case the defendants choose to return the goods supplied at Chandigarh and Hyderabad, the plaintiffs are entitled to an amount of Rs. 23,38,263.81/-.

7. In their written statement, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have averred that the suit is liable to be dismissed as barred under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. Plaintiff No. 1 is pleaded not to be a registered firm under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and Plaintiffs 2-5 are not its registered partners. The said defendants have denied that the plaintiffs have submitted quotations for supply of furniture to the Navodya Vidyalaya and state that on no occasion did defendants Nos. 1-2 call for quotations from the plaintiffs for supply of furniture. Defendant No. 3 was not authorized by defendants 1 and 2 to write the letter dated 02.07.1987 purportedly written by the said defendant No. 3 and that defendant No. 3 was not connected with the Navodya Vidyalayas at the time that the said letter was purportedly written. It has further been pleaded that the Navodya Vidyalayas society is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and has an executive Committee which has been empowered to frame regulations for the administration and management of the affairs of the society which include work such as executing contracts, investment of funds of the society and the sale or alteration of such investments and to prepare and sanction budget estimates and sanction expenditure for various activities of the society and thus defendant No. 3 not authorized to write the letter dated 02.07.1987 (Ex. P-2).

8. In so far as the various other communications/letters referred to by the plaintiff and stated to be written by defendant No. 3 are concerned, defendants 1 and 2 in the written statement have denied the writing of the letters by or on behalf of defendants No. 1 and 2 and have also denied authorizing defendant No. 3 to write such letters. Defendants 1 and 2 have also denied the supply of goods of any kind to them by the plaintiffs.

9. No written statement has been filed on behalf of defendant No. 3.

10. On 08.08.1996, the following issues were framed:

(1) Whether there was any contract between the plaintiffs and the Union of India for the supply of furniture to the Union of India by the Plaintiffs?

(2) Whether the plaintiff had performed his part of the contract?

(3) Whether the defendants failed and neglect to perform their part of the contract?

(4) Whether the plaintiff supplied the goods from 07.03.1988 to 10.06. 1988 to the value of 18,34,367.70 as mentioned in para 31 of the plaint?

(5) Whether the plaintiffs submitted any bill on 20.06.1988 to Hyderabad Centre for payment?

(6) Whether the plaintiffs have supplied goods as per the orders issued by the defendants to the Hyderabad and Chandigarh Centres as mentioned in para 44 of the plaint?

(7) Whether the plaintiffs could claim relief as mentioned in para 45 and the alternative relief mentioned in para 46 of the plaint?

(8) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to interest at 21 per cent per annum as claimed by the plaintiffs?

(9) Whether the firm in which the plaintiffs are partners is registered?

(10) Whether the bar under Section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932 would apply to the facts and circumstances of this case?

(11) Relief

11. On behalf of the Plaintiffs, the affidavits of evidence of Sh. Satish Gupta (Plaintiff No. 2); Sh. Sanjay Gupta(Plaintiff No. 4) Sh. Subhash Gupta (Plaintiff No. 3); who appeared as PW1, PW2 and PW3 respectively have been filed. Besides, the affidavit of evidence of Mr. Amitabh Gupta PW 4/A has also been filed.

12. Defendants No. 1 and 2 were represented through counsel till about 26.04.2004 after which none appeared on behalf of the said defendants on a number of consecutive dates. On account of the non appearance of defendants, the defendants were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 17.08.2006.

13. On 06.03.2007, Mr. VK Singh, proxy counsel for Mr. Suresh Kait, standing counsel for the Union of India was apprised of the stage of proceedings and requested time to take appropriate steps. Thereafter on 02.04.2007, Mr. Kait stated that he was receiving no instructions.

14. I heard learned Counsel for the plaintiff on 2.04.2007, 16.04.2007 and 3.05.3007. The findings on the issues are as under:

Issue 1 : Whether there was any contract between the plaintiff and the Union of India for the supply of furniture to the Union of India by the Plaintiff.

15. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff has referred to the correspondence between the parties to contend that there was a contract between the plaintiffs and the Union of India for the supply of furniture. The plaintiff relies on the letter dated 05.06.1987 whereby quotations were submitted for the supply of furniture (Ex. P1). Learned Counsel for the plaintiff also placed reliance on the letter dated 02.07.1987 marked as Exhibit P2 which seeks acceptance by plaintiff No. 1 of the terms and conditions contained therein. The subject of the letter is 'Acceptance of terms and conditions of the contract'. The terms and conditions specified in the said letter include, time period for commencement of supply and completion of work; reserving of the right to inspect the work; that no advance payment is to be made; etc.

16. It is contended that Plaintiff No. 1 conveyed its acceptance of the terms and conditions mentioned in the letter dated 02.07.1987 vide letter dated 05.07.1987 which has been exhibited as Exhibit P 3.

17. In so far as the said letters are concerned, defendants 1 and 2, in the written statement have denied that any quotations for supply of furniture were submitted by the plaintiff. The said defendants have stated that the letter dated 02.07.1987 is purported to have been written by defendant No. 3 and that defendant No. 3 was never authorized by defendants 1 and 2 to write any such letter to the plaintiff. The said defendants have further taken the stand that defendant No. 3, on account of his functioning as under secretary in the Ministry of Human Resource Development was not entitled to write any such letter on behalf of defendants 1 and 2. It has also been averred that defendant No. 3 was not connected with the Navodya Vidyalayas at the time that the letter dated 02.07.1987 was written. Defendants 1 and 2 in their written statement have contended that no letter dated 05.07.1987 has ever been received by defendant No. 2.

18. The principal plea of the defendants taken in the written statement is thus of the non-authorisation of defendant No. 3 to enter into a contract with the plaintiffs. As the defendants are ex parte no other evidence has been adduced by the said defendants in support of their stand besides the denial of the various letters in the written statement.

19. Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs referred to the other documents and communications between the parties including Ex. P-5 whereby information that the SBI proposes to stand guarantee for Rs. 32,00,000 for the supply of furniture is sought to be conveyed to the plaintiffs; Ex. P-7 conveying the sanction of the competent authority for the departmental guarantee to plaintiff No. 1 and Exhibits P-9 and P-11 which are an office memorandum with respect to the setting up of an inspection committee for inspecting goods to be supplied to various establishments of the defendants and the report of the committee respectively in support of his contention.

20. Learned Counsel also relied on Ex. P-13 which accords the sanction of the President of India to pay Rs. 4,00,000 to plaintiff No. 1; Exhibits P-17 and P- 22 whereunder schedules for dispatch of furniture at centres at Hyderabad, Bhopal, Chandigarh and Bhubaneshwar have been specified; Exhibit P-26 a letter of defendant No. 3 informing plaintiff No. 1 of difficulty in locating suitable godowns and also Exhibits P-30, P-31, and P-32 with regard to road permits for the dispatch of goods.

21. Insofar as the aforementioned correspondence is concerned, defendant Nos. 1 and 2, in their written statement have again denied the writing of the letters by or on their behalf and have also denied the authority of defendant No. 3 to write such letters. Defendants 1 and 2 have pleaded that it is the Navodya Vidyalaya Executive committee that is place, sanction, confirm, accept and do all necessary works relating to the administration and management of the committee. However, no evidence has been adduced by the said defendants in this behalf.

22. The aforesaid shows that the plaintiffs submitted quotations for the supply of furniture. A letter seeking acceptance of terms and conditions was received by the plaintiffs which were accepted vide the letter dated 05.07.1987. The other documents exhibited by the plaintiff show that pursuant to the acceptance of the terms and conditions by the plaintiff, steps were taken by the plaintiff as well as defendants for giving effect to/carrying out the terms of the contract including provision of a bank guarantee, conveying the sanction of the president towards advances, correspondence regarding delivery schedules etc. The defendants although have taken the stand that defendant No. 3 with whom most of the correspondence of the plaintiff took place was not authorized to write any letters or was not connected with the Navodya Vidyalaya Society at the time when the letters were written, has not led any evidence in this behalf.

23. The result is that issue No. 1 is decided in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.

Issue 2 : Whether the plaintiff had performed his part of the contract?

Issue 3 : Whether the defendants failed and neglect to perform their part of the contract?

Issue 4 : Whether the plaintiff supplied the goods from 07.03.1988 to 10.06.1988 to the value of 18,34,367.70 as mentioned in para 31 of the plaint?

Issue 5 : Whether the plaintiffs submitted any bill on 20.06.1988 to Hyderabad Centre for payment?

Issue 6 : Whether the plaintiffs have supplied goods as per the orders issued by the defendants to the Hyderabad and Chandigarh Centres as mentioned in para 44 of the plaint?

24. In so far as the performance of the obligations in the contract by the plaintiffs are concerned, learned Counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that it is established from the correspondence between the parties from 1987-1989 that plaintiff No. 1 performed its part of the contract.

25. Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs pointed out that on 01.04.1992, Local Commissioners had been appointed to visit the centres at Chandigarh and Hyderabad and submitted that due to paucity of funds, the commission could be executed only at the Hyderabad Centre. A perusal of the report of the local commissioner shows that the local commissioner visited the site at Morning Enterprises C/o J Om Prakash, Door No. 4, Kuttapeth, Hyderabad on 24.05.1993 for execution of the commission and found various items of furniture at the site including 540 chairs, 180 study desks, 161 wood almairahs, 9 library tables, 325 hard beds, 2 attendance boards and 90 drawing desks.

26. A receiver was appointed vide order dated 06.12.1993 for taking custody and possession of the goods. The report of the receiver contains a proposal for disposal of the goods and mode of disposal. Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs, also referred to Exhibit P 55 which are stated to be photographs of the furniture at the site at Hyderabad. Learned Counsel thus submitted that from the aforementioned, it is clear that the goods have been supplied.

27. A perusal of the invoices placed on record by the plaintiffs shows that bills bearing various dates between 07.03.1988 and 10.06.1988 have been raised against various items of furniture supplied to Hyderabad and Chandigarh totalling to Rs. 18,34,861.70.

28. In the written statement, defendants 1 and 2 have taken the stand that there was no occasion for the plaintiff to supply any furniture at any centres. However, the said defendants have not placed any evidence on record disproving the receipt of the said goods.

29. Insofar as the submission of the bill at the Hyderabad Centre is concerned, learned Counsel for the plaintiff referred to Exhibit P 40 which is a letter on behalf of plaintiff No. 1 addressed to the Undersecretary, department of Education, Ministry of HRD, which states that the bills for payment for the NVS Centre for Hyderabad are being submitted. The said exhibit has been proved by the affidavit of evidence of Plaintiff No. 2, as also of Plaintiff Nos. 3 and 4.

30. The correspondence between plaintiff No. 1 and defendants shows that after the acceptance of the terms and conditions was conveyed by the plaintiffs steps were taken for giving effect to the terms of the contract. The invoices raised by the plaintiffs show that furniture of the value of Rs. 18,34,867.70 was supplied by plaintiff No. 1 to Hyderabad and Chandigarh. The report of the local commissioner dated 24.05.1993 that various items of furniture for schools were found at a godown and the photographs (Ex. P-55 colly) at Hyderabad give an impetus to the case of the plaintiff. No evidence has been led to show that the goods were not received by the defendants or in support of the averment of defendants 1 and 2 that defendant No. 3 who has addressed the various communications to the plaintiffs was not authorized to write any letters or was not connected with the NVS.

31. These issues are thus decided accordingly. Issue No. 7 : Whether the plaintiffs could claim relief as mentioned in para 45 and the alternative relied mentioned in para 46 of the plaint?

32. The plaintiffs have claimed an amount of Rs. 27,01,213.51 on account of the total value of the goods supplied, as well as expenses incurred on rent for godowns at Chandigarh, Hyderabad and Delhi, Loading and unloading of goods supplied to Chandigarh and Hyderabad Centres; costs of the legal notice and interest on the value of goods supplied till 31.01.1990 and in the alternative have claimed Rs. 23,38,263 on the basis of 50 per cent of the value of the goods in case of return of the goods.

33. Insofar as the goods supplied are concerned, it is apparent from the various invoices placed on record by the plaintiffs that furniture/goods of the value of Rs. 18,34,861.70 were supplied by plaintiff No. 1 to Hyderabad and Chandigarh. It is the plaintiffs claim that plaintiff No. 1 had sent the defendants letters dated 07.06.1988 (Ex. P 38), 17.06.1988 (Ex. P 39), 20.06.1988 (Ex. P. 40) and 02.03.1989 (Ex. P 41) claiming payment of various bills raised. Again, as noticed the stand of defendants 1 and 2 in this behalf is that no such letters were received by them and no occasion arises for the plaintiffs to claim such amounts as no order of goods was placed, nor any supply made and consequently there is no question of payments to be made. No evidence has been led in this regard.

34. However, a receiver was appointed and took the furniture supplied to Hyderabad back to Delhi. As regards the furniture supplied to the Chandigarh centre, a local commissioner was appointed to visit the centre and make an inventory of the goods as was the case with the goods supplied to Hyderabad but it is submitted by learned Counsel for the plaintiff that the said commission could not be executed with respect to the goods at Chandigarh. The plaintiffs would thus not be entitled to claim the full value of the goods supplied at least insofar as the Hyderabad Centre is concerned as the same were taken back by them. In so far as the furniture supplied to Chandigarh is concerned, the same have not been taken back by the plaintiffs and thus, the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the full value of such furniture.

35. Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the costs of Rs. 4,61,905 were incurred in bringing back the goods from Hyderabad and averred that the expenses incurred by the plaintiff in the execution of the commission should also be included in the costs of the suit. As far as this aspect is concerned, learned Counsel for the plaintiff drew the attention of this Court to the order dated 14.12.1998 wherein it has been observed that the expenses incurred by the plaintiffs for execution of the orders of the receiver may be included in costs if the same are proved.

36. The plaintiff place reliance on air and train tickets and receipts proved as exhibits P-51 to P-54 in support of the expenses incurred in bringing the goods from Hyderabad to Delhi. The cost of the air tickets placed on record is Rs. 18662. Reliance has also been placed on Ex P-50 which is an MOU on between two partners of plaintiff No. 1 and the landlords of godowns at Hyderabad for the payment Rs. 4,00,000 for the renting of the said godowns of which Rs. 1,00,000 was to be paid at the time of the vacation of the godown. In this regard, photocopies of two pay orders of Rs. 49,000/- each to the landlord of the godowns at Hyderabad as well as receipt of Rs. 2000/- have been proved as Ex. P- 53 totaling to Rs. 1,00,000. Receipts in respect of boarding and lodging of the value of Rs. 10622/- are exhibited as Exh. P-54. Besides train tickets of the value of Rs. 4928/- are also part of Ex. P- 54. Receipts for the transportation of the furniture from Hyderabad to Delhi totaling to Rs. 1,91,700/- have been exhibited as Exh P-52. PW 4 has proved the receipt for Rs. 3879/- (exhibit PW- 4/5) in respect of expenses incurred for the publication of the notice of sale of the furniture. Besides, the plaintiffs were to pay to the local commissioner a fee of Rs. 5000/- and a fee of Rs. 10000/- to the receiver. The plaintiffs have also claimed to have paid Rs. 10000/- as advocate's fees and Rs. 6500 for other boarding and lodging etc of the receiver. In respect of other expenses claimed, no sufficient evidence has been placed on record. The expenses proved by the plaintiffs thus amounts to Rs. 3,61,291/-.

37. The plaintiffs have also claimed expenses incurred for rents towards godowns at Chandigarh, Hyderabad and Delhi and costs of loading and unloading of goods besides the interest claimed. In this behalf, no sufficient evidence has been filed.

38. The invoices of plaintiff No. 1 and the report of the local commissioner/receiver as also the photographs exhibited as Exhibit P-55 with regard to Hyderabad show the plaintiffs have supplied furniture to Hyderabad and Chandigarh. While the furniture supplied by the plaintiff at Hyderabad was taken back by the plaintiffs in 1998 pursuant to the appointment of the receiver, the goods supplied at Chandigarh are stated to be still at Chandigarh as the commission could not be executed. It cannot be lost sight of that the goods supplied by plaintiff No. 1 was furniture intended for use at schools and due to the specific nature of the furniture and time period for which it had remained in the godowns, there would be depreciation in the resale value.

39. I am thus of the view that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover 50 per cent of the value of the furniture supplied to Hyderabad i.e. Rs. 8,65,478.35 (50 per cent of Rs. 17,30,956.70) and the full value of the furniture supplied to Chandigarh i.e. Rs. 1,03,905/- and the expenses of Rs. 3,61,291/- borne by the plaintiffs.

40. This issue is thus decided accordingly. Issue No. 8: Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to interest at 21 per cent per annum as claimed by the plaintiffs?

41. The plaintiffs have claimed interest at the rate of 21 per cent per annum from the date of the suit until the date of realization. The submission of learned Counsel for the plaintiff on this aspect is that as the plaintiffs have been deprived of their legal dues since 1988, they are entitled to interest.

42. The plaintiffs have supplied furniture to the defendants towards which they have not received any payment. The present suit was filed on 05.02.1990 and about sixteen years have passed since. The plaintiffs are thus entitled to interest on the principal amount. However, what is to be seen is at what rate is the interest liable to be paid. The interest rate was initially high but subsequently interest rates have reduced. I am of the view that interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 9,69,383.35 from the date of filing of the suit till the date of the realisation is reasonable and the plaintiffs are entitled to the same.

43. The issue is thus decided accordingly.

Issue No. 9 : Whether the firm in which the plaintiffs are partners is registered

Issue No. 10 : Whether the bar under Section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932 would apply to the facts and circumstances of this case.

44. Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs contended that plaintiff No. 1 firm was a registered one and thus the bar under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership act, 1932 would not apply. In respect of the registration of plaintiff No. 1, learned Counsel for the plaintiffs placed reliance on Exhibit p 56 which is Form 'A' issued by the Registrar of Firms. The said certificate bears No. 999/87 and mentions the date of registration to be 06.06.1987. The said document also mentions the number of partners as three namely Sh Subhash Gupta, Sh. Santosh Chand Gupta and Sh. Sanjay Gupta and the date of joining of these three persons has been mentioned as 01.04.1987.

45. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the name of one of the partners Sh. Satish Chand Gupta has been wrongly recorded as Santosh Chand Gupta. Learned Counsel further submitted that registration of the firm is the only requirement to be fulfillled under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act and the partners who have filed the case should be shown as partners in the register of firms on the date of filing of the suit but it is not necessary that all the partners join. Learned Counsel referred to the judgment of a division bench of the Patna High Court in Chaiman Lal and Anr. v. New India Traders Mica Merchants and Ors. to advance the proposition that the provisions of Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act have to be read together with Order 30 Rule 1 and the provisions read together apparently mean that where a suit is instituted in the name of a registered firm, only those persons who are registered as partners of the firm can get the benefit of the decree in favor of the firm or shall be liable for a decree against a firm and subject to these conditions a suit is maintainable. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff thus submits that plaintiff No. 1 firm being a registered one, if a decree passed in favor of or against the said firm, the same would be for the benefit of or cast liabilities on the registered partners.

46. To appreciate the contention of learned Counsel for the plaintiffs it may be useful to reproduce the relevant provision of the Partnership Act. Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 reads as under:

69. EFFECT OF NON-REGISTRATION.

(1) ...

(2) No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any court by or on behalf of a firm against any third party unless the firm is registered and the persons suing are or have been shown in the Register of Firms as partners in the firm.

47. Thus, in terms of the said section, a suit to enforce a right arising out of any contract on behalf of a firm can be instituted if the firm is a registered one and the persons suing are or have been shown in the register of firms as partners.

48. A perusal of the decision in Chaiman Lal and Anr.'s case supra shows that where the firm is a registered one and some partners have become partners at a later date but failed to get their names registered as partners in the register, there is nothing in the Partnership Act to indicate that in such a contingency, the suit itself would fail. The result in such a case would be that only the registered partners would get the benefit of a decree passed in favor of a firm and would bear the liabilities in case of a decree passed against a firm.

49. A perusal of the application for registration of the plaintiff firm i.e. Form No. 1 [Rule 4 (ii)] placed on record shows that the three persons mentioned as partners are Sh. Subhash Gupta. Sh. Satish Chand Gupta and Sh. Sanjay Gupta.

50. Plaintiff No. 1 firm is a registered one as is shown by Ex. P 56 which is the certificate in Form 'A' of the registrar of firms. The said certificate shows Sh. Subhash Gupta; Sh. Sanjay Gupta and Sh. Santosh Chand Gupta as the partners of the said firm. The application for registration of the plaintiff firm, however, shows that as contended by learned Counsel for the plaintiff, the same of Sh. Satish Chand Gupta has been mentioned as partner and appears to have been wrongly recorded in the Certificate in Form 'A' of the registrar of firms as Sh. Santosh Chand Gupta.

51. Thus, of the persons who have filed the suit on behalf of the firm, Sh. Subhash Chand Gupta, Sh. Satish Chand Gupta and Sh. Sanjay Gupta are registered partners while Sh. Raja Bose, who is plaintiff No. 5 is not mentioned in the certificate furnished by the plaintiffs.

52. In view of the decision in Chiman Lal and Anr.'s Case (supra), the decree passed would operate only qua Sh. Satish Gupta (Plaintiff No. 2); Sh. Subhash Gupta (Plaintiff No. 3) and Sh. Sanjay Gupta (Plaintiff No. 4) and not qua Sh. Raja Bose (Plaintiff No. 5).

53. The issues are thus decided accordingly. Issue 11: Relief

54. In view of the aforesaid, Plaintiffs 1, 2, 3 and 4 are entitled to 50 per cent of the value of the goods supplied at Hyderabad of Rs. 8,65,478.35/- (50 % of Rs. 17,30,956.70/-) and the value of the furniture supplied to Chandigarh of Rs. 1,03,905/- amounting to a total of Rs. 9,69,383.35/-. Plaintiff Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are further entitled to interest on the principal amount of Rs. 9,69,383.35/- @ 9 per cent per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the date of realisation. In view of the order dated 14.12.1998, the said plaintiff Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are also entitled to the expenses of Rs. 3,61,291/- incurred in bringing the goods from Hyderabad to Delhi along with simple interest @ 9 per cent per annum from 1.1.1999 till date of realisation and costs.

55. A decree is passed in the aforesaid terms in favor of plaintiff Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 and against Defendant No. 1.

56. A Decree Sheet be drawn up accordingly.