M/S. Friends Automobiles vs M/S. Neptune Equipment Pvt. Ltd
2011 Latest Caselaw 719 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                               RFA No.182/2001

%                                                      7th February, 2011

M/S. FRIENDS AUTOMOBILES                            ...... Appellant
                                Through:     None

                          VERSUS


M/S. NEPTUNE EQUIPMENT PVT. LTD                     ...... Respondent
                         Through:           None

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

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

    2.   To be referred to the Reporter or not?

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


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.            This case is on the Regular Board of this Court since 3.1.2011.

This case is effective item no.7 on the Regular Board of this court today. No

one appears for the parties although it is 12.45 pm. I have therefore perused

the record and am proceeding to dispose of the matter.

2.            The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal is to the

impugned judgment and decree dated 31.1.2001 whereby the suit of the

respondent/plaintiff for recovery was decreed. The suit for recovery was

decreed for price of two machines supplied to the appellant i.e. one Neptune

Diesel Smoke Meter and one Neptune Exhaust Gas Analyser.
RFA No.182/2001                                                        Page 1 of 3
 3.          The facts of the case are that with respect to the two machines

supplied to the appellant, the respondent/plaintiff raised bills numbered

92361 and 92362, dated 28.7.97, for Rs.1,65,000/- and Rs.1,22,100/-

respectively.   The appellant made payment of only Rs.25,000/-, and the

balance amount was given by post dated cheques which were dishonoured

on presentation, resulting in filing of the suit.

4.          Three defences were raised by the appellant in the Trial Court.

First was that the respondent had to return the cheque and receive the cash

in exchange thereof. The second defence was that the machinery supplied

was defective and the third defence was that the Courts at Ambala had

territorial jurisdiction and not the courts in Delhi.

      So far as the main issue of the machinery being allegedly defective is

concerned, the Trial court has held that no evidence was adduced by the

defendant to prove that the machinery was defective and therefore it cannot

be held that the machinery was defective.               So far as the territorial

jurisdiction aspect is concerned, the Trial court has held that the goods were

supplied to defendant at and from Delhi i.e. the performance of the contract

was to take place in Delhi and hence Delhi rightly had territorial jurisdiction.

In any case, I do not find that any prejudice was caused to the appellant on

account of trial of the suit in Delhi and therefore there cannot be any

technical objection to the impugned decree considering the fact that more

than 11 years have passed by since the commencement of litigation. The

argument of return of cheques against cash was immaterial as admittedly
RFA No.182/2001                                                    Page 2 of 3
 the price remained unpaid till the suit was filed.

5.          In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or perversity in

the impugned judgment and decree which calls for interference. The appeal

is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.




February 07, 2011                                    VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ak