M/S Flex Industries Ltd. vs M/S Veekay Marketing P.Ltd.
2012 Latest Caselaw 5467 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                              CS(OS)No.1681/1991

%                                                    12th September, 2012

         M/S FLEX INDUSTRIES LTD.                   ..... Plaintiff
                       Through: Mr. Yudhvir B. Arya, Adv.

                      versus


         M/S VEEKAY MARKETING P.LTD.                           ..... Defendant
                      Through:

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

    To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1.

This is a suit for recovery of ` 22,84,185/- against the two defendants

i.e. M/s Veekay Marketing P. Ltd.-defendant no.1 and M/s S.M.Dyechem

Ltd.-defendant no.2. Defendant no.1 is ex parte and defendant no.2 is a sick

company and proceedings are going on before BIFR. This suit has been filed

for recovery by the plaintiff on the ground that plaintiff was purchasing raw-

materials from the defendant-companies for manufacturing of their products

which are polyster type and based printed material for packaging glassine,

paper, board etc.

2. As per the case of the plaintiff, various amounts were paid to different

parties on the request of the defendant nos. 1 and 2 for the raw-materials

which were to be supplied to the plaintiff. The contract between the parties is

dated 18.12.1987 for supply of 60 M.T.LDPE. Plaintiff is said to have paid

an amount of ` 14,34,000/- i.e. ` 5,25,000/- to the defendant no.1 and `

9,09,000/- to the defendant no.2. The defendant no.1 company had issued

three cheques of ` 3,03,000/- dated 26.4.1989, 25.5.1989 and 1.6.1989, which

were dishonoured on presentation. Plaintiff, therefore, claims a total sum of `

22,84,185/-, of which a sum of ` 14,34,000/- is towards principal and `

8,50,185 towards interest.

3. Plaintiff has filed an affidavit by way of evidence and has proved the

power of attorney and resolution to file the suit as Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/2.

The contract between the parties dated 18.12.1987 has been exhibited as

PW1/5. The letters along with the payments made to the defendants have

been proved and exhibited as Ex.PW1/6 and Ex.PW1/7 showing payment of

`14,34,000/-. Plaintiff has also made averments with respect to dishonouring

of the three cheques, and with respect to which, complaint under Section 138

of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 is pending before the concerned Court

of Metropolitan Magistrate at Patiala House Court.

4. In view of the above, plaintiff has proved that the defendants received

payment but failed to supply raw-materials, and therefore, the suit of the

plaintiff is decreed against the defendant no.1 for a sum of ` 14,34,000/-

alongwith interest at 9% per annum simple from 1.6.1988 till the date of

payment. Plaintiff is also entitled to costs as per the rules of this Court. The

suit is therefore decreed against the defendant no.1 and decree sheet be

prepared accordingly.

5. So far as the defendant no.2 is concerned, the present suit is disposed of

for the present with liberty to the plaintiff to revive this very suit either on the

defendant no.2 company ceasing to be a sick company or plaintiff getting the

permission from BIFR to proceed with the present suit.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 ib