R.P. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. vs Gupta Sales Agencies
2008 Latest Caselaw 1266 Del

*                        HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI

                     Judgment reserved on: August 05, 2008
                     Judgment delivered on : August 7, 2008

+                             R.F. A. No. 112/2008

         R.P. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.             ...    Appellant
                          Through: Mr. M.Y. Khan, Advocate

                                     versus

         Gupta Sales Agencies              ...   Respondent
                        Through: Mr. Virendra Singh, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

1.       Whether the Reporters of local papers may
         be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to Reporter or not?

3.       Whether the judgment should be reported
         in the Digest?

SUNIL GAUR, J.

1. Appellant/ Defendant firm had purchased hardware goods

from the respondent /plaintiff firm vide bills and challans Ex.

PW1/10-A.1 to A.142 during the period ranging from August, 2004

till December, 2004 and as per the statement of account of the

appellant/ defendant maintained by the respondent/plaintiff, the

outstanding amount due towards the appellant / defendant on 7th

February, 2005 was Rs.2,53,482.77 p. What is disputed in this

appeal is that the outstanding amount due towards the appellant

is not the suit amount but is Rs.94,100/- only and since "no due

certificate" was not given by the respondent to the appellant, so

aforesaid dues of Rs. 94,100/- were not paid by the appellant to

the respondent. According to the appellant, there was an

understanding between the parties that the hardware goods would

be supplied by the respondent to the appellant at lesser rates than

the market rate and in good faith appellant relied upon respondent

and had made part payments from time to time. Dispute regarding

the rate of the hardware goods came to light when the appellant

wrote letter dated 11th January, 2005. Thereafter, respondent/

plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of principal amount of

Rs.2,53,482.77p. alongwith interest.

2. Aforesaid suit of the respondent/plaintiff was resisted by

the appellant/defendant by disputing the rates of the hardware

goods supplied by the respondent to the appellant and by

asserting that the outstanding amount due towards the appellant

was not the suit amount but Rs.94,100/- only.

3. The issues claimed by the parties before the trial Court were

as under:-

"i) Whether the plaint has been signed, verified and instituted by a duly authorized person? OPP

ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of suit amount? OPP

iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest? If so, at what rate and for what period? OPP

iv) Relief."

4. Both the parties had led their evidence before the trial Court.

In support of the plaint, Sh.Devkinandan Gupta PW-1, the special

power of attorney of proprietor of respondent/plaintiff firm had

deposed and Sh.Krishna Pad Mondal, Account Executive of the

appellant/defendant firm had deposed in support of the stand

taken in the written statement by the appellant/defendant. Trial

Court vide impugned judgment dated 8th January,2008 has

decreed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff against the

appellant/defendant with cost for the principal amount of Rs.

2,53,482.77p. with pendentelite and future interest @ 9% per

annum. Hence this appeal.

5. Both the sides have been heard by us and the record of the

case has been perused. The supply of goods is not in dispute. The

short point which arises for consideration is whether the rate of

goods supplied were exorbitant or higher than the market rate of

the hardware goods supplied by the respondent to the appellant.

6. After having gone through the record of this case, we find

that there are challans and bills Ex. PW1/10-A.1 to A.142 against

which goods were supplied by the respondent to the appellant

during the period from August 2004 to December 2004 and the

appellant had been making part payment during this period from

time to time. Appellant does not deny having received the goods in

question as claimed by the respondent but it is said that the

dispute is only as regards the rates of the goods supplied. It is

the case of the respondent/plaintiff that Devki Nandan PW-1 used

to personally deliver the quotations Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/9 of the

rates of the goods to be supplied to the representative of the

appellant and thereafter orders for the supply of goods used to

be placed. Mere denial of the same would not suffice for the reason

that the so called good faith of the appellant cannot be blind faith

and if it is so, then the appellant has to suffer. Needless to say

that business transactions are not carried out in good faith but are

done by exercise of due diligence.

7. In any case, appellant has failed to show that the rates

charged by the respondent of the goods supplied were exorbitant

or higher than the market rates. No evidence of the market rates

of the goods supplied is forthcoming. Even if it is assumed that no

quotations were made available to the appellant by the

respondent, still business prudence demanded that at the very

first instance, the rates of the goods to be supplied should have

been settled. If it has been not so done by the appellant, then for

this fault of the appellant, none other than the appellant has to

suffer. The casualness of the appellant is evident from the fact that

the balance sheets indicating the purchases made have not been

placed or proved on record by the appellant during the trial of this

case.

8. Nothing more needs to be said except that we find no merit in

the present appeal. There is no illegality or infirmity in the

impugned judgment and decree and the same is hereby affirmed.

During the pendency of this appeal, appellant had deposited a sum

of Rs.1,40,000/- in all. Since this appeal lacks merits and is thus

dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost, therefore

respondent would be at liberty to withdraw the aforesaid amount

deposited by the appellant and to take out execution for the

remaining amount in accordance with the decree passed in this

case.

9. With the dismissal of this appeal, the pending application

being C.M. Appl. No.3881/2008 also dismissed and stands

disposed of.

SUNIL GAUR, J

T.S. THAKUR, J

August 7, 2008 PKB