Delhi High Court
Shree Laxmikant Flour Industries ... vs M/S. Prem Chand Naresh Kumar & Anr. on 26 July, 2011
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No.95/2002
% July 26, 2011
SHREE LAXMIKANT FLOUR INDUSTRIES LTD. ...... Appellant
Through: Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate.
VERSUS
M/S. PREM CHAND NARESH KUMAR & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Madan Lal Sharma, Advocate with Mr.
Varun Nischal, Advocate for respondent
No.1.
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. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal under
Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned
judgment dated 20.10.2001 which has decreed the suit of the
respondents/plaintiffs for recovery of money on account of goods/grains
supplied.
RFA No. 95/2002. Page 1 of 5
2. The admitted facts of the case are that the appellant/defendant
No.1 purchased the wheat grains from the respondents/plaintiffs. The
respondents/plaintiffs from 31.7.1996 to 19.9.1996 sold grains totaling to
value of Rs.19,82,258.35/- to the appellant/defendant No.1 and accordingly
raised various bills and invoices. The appellant/defendant No.1 made part
payment in the sum of Rs.17,10,424/- by means of bank draft payable at
Delhi. The balance amount of Rs.2,71,834.35/- was not paid in spite of
demands and whereupon a legal notice dated 13.3.1997 was sent which was
replied to by a reply dated 10.4.1997 wherein it was admitted that grain was
received, however, it was stated that no payment was due to
respondents/plaintiffs because the respondents/plaintiffs failed to supply the
complete quantity and therefore loss was caused to the appellant/defendant
No.1. The trial Court has decreed the suit by holding that the Courts in Delhi
have territorial jurisdiction because the acceptance was given on telephone
from Delhi. It has also been established on record that payment was made
in Delhi and it was made by bank draft payable at Delhi. The trial Court has
further held that the supply has been proved as per the corresponding
bills/invoices and the counter claim of the appellant/defendant No.1 could
not be looked into in the absence of having been paid Court fees and not
getting any issue framed to the effect that loss had been caused to the
appellant.
RFA No. 95/2002. Page 2 of 5
3. Learned counsel for the appellant argued two points before me.
It was firstly argued that the Courts in Delhi have no jurisdiction and
secondly that the respondent/plaintiff had failed to supply the complete
quantity resulting in loss to the appellant/defendant No.1.
4. I do not find any merit in the arguments as raised on behalf of
the appellant. In a contract by telephone, the place from where acceptance
is given is the place where the contract is concluded-Bhagwandas
Goverdhan Kedia Vs. M/s. Girdharilal Parshottam Das and Co. Others
AIR 1966 SC 543. Also, admittedly the payment was made to the
respondents/plaintiffs by means of bank draft payable in Delhi. The place
where payment is made is a place which would have territorial jurisdiction
vide judgment of the Supreme Court reported as A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd.
and Anr. Vs. A. P. Agencies, Salem AIR 1989 SC 1239. I have
therefore no hesitation to hold that Courts in Delhi had territorial jurisdiction.
On the aspect that the respondents/plaintiffs were entitled to the
amount paid for the grains/goods supplied, there can be no quarrel inasmuch
as not only the relevant bills and invoices have been proved but in reply
exhibited as Ex.PW1/30 to the legal notice exhibited as Ex.DW1/2, the
appellant/defendant No.1 admitted to have received the goods but denied
payment on the ground that complete goods were not supplied resulting in
loss to the respondents. The trial Court has rightly said that if this case was
true, the appellant/defendant No.1 ought to have filed the counter claim by
RFA No. 95/2002. Page 3 of 5
payment of Court fee and ought to have got such an issue framed, however,
no counter claim was filed, no Court fee was paid and nor an issue was
framed on this basis. This argument of the appellant is also therefore
rejected.
5. One aspect on which I am inclined to grant relief to the
appellant/defendant No.1 is that trial Court has granted interest @ 15% per
annum simple from 25.9.1996 to the date of filing of the suit and thereafter
till realization. The Supreme Court in the recent chain of judgments reported
as Rajendra Construction Co. v. Maharashtra Housing & Area
Development Authority and others, 2005 (6) SCC 678, McDermott
International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and others, 2006 (11)
SCC 181, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Indag
Rubber Ltd., (2006) 7 SCC 700, Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v.
G.Harischandra, 2007 (2) SCC 720 & State of Rajasthan Vs. Ferro
Concrete Construction Pvt. Ltd (2009) 3 Arb. LR 140 (SC) has
mandated the Courts to reduce the high rates of interest especially
considering the long pendency of litigation.
6. Accordingly, I feel that in the facts and circumstances of the
case, considering that the bills contain the higher rate of interest @ 27% per
annum, I reduce the rate of interest granted by the trial Court from 15% per
annum to 12% per annum simple. However, I am not changing the period for
RFA No. 95/2002. Page 4 of 5
which the interest is granted by the impugned judgment and decree.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed to the limited extent of reducing the rate
of interest as stated above, otherwise appeal is dismissed. The amount
deposited in the Court by the appellant has been released to the
respondents on furnishing security bond. Since the appeal has been
dismissed, the security bond is discharged. Parties are left to bear their own
costs. Decree sheet be prepared. Trial Court record be sent back.
JULY 26, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
