M/S. Medeqtrade India Private Limited vs The Managing Director,
2025 Latest Caselaw 3765 Tel

Telangana High Court

M/S. Medeqtrade India Private Limited vs The Managing Director, on 10 June, 2025

     THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

          CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL No.248 OF 2019

JUDGMENT:

This is an appeal filed by the appellant, being aggrieved by

the judgment and decree, dated 20.02.2019 passed in O.S.No.833

of 2013 by the learned IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad (for short "the trial Court").

2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondents are

the defendants before the trial Court. The parties herein are

referred to as they were arrayed in the suit before the trial Court

for the sake of convenience and clarity.

3. The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court was that the

plaintiff is engaged in the business of sales, supply and service of

all kinds of pre-owned imported medical equipment to the

Hospitals in India and that it got a chance to import sophisticated

pre-owned 1000 number of Horizon NXT Infusion Pumps (needle

less IV system) manufactured by M/s.B.Braun, Melsungen Ag., (a

German Medical and Pharmaceutical device company) from the

supplier by name M/s.DOTMed.com Inc.USA. That the plaintiff

was not aware whether the compatible IV sets were available in

India or not and that the sophisticated pumps were not sold in

India and therefore, the plaintiff approached M/s.DOTMed.com ETD,J CCCA No.248_2019

expressing its interest that it would be taking up the deal if the

compatible IV sets are available in India. It is its further case

that in the Website of defendant No.2 the name of M/s.B.Bruan

Medical (India) Private Limited is reflected as a manufacturer

doing its business in India at Mumbai and that it is engaged in

manufacturing various range and types of health care products

such as infusion pumps, IV sets, Intensive care, cardiology,

extracorporeal blood treatment units etc., and are also the

stockiest Distributors and suppliers of multi brand health

products etc., and also they are the service providers. Having

gone through the website the plaintiff could find that one

Mr.Jagdish Chandra Modi, is the person entrusted with the

responsibility of Indian Operations and that he is taking care of

the business operations in India, thus, the plaintiff negotiated

with the concerned person and enquired whether the said

company can supply compatible IV sets on regular basis for

importing the counterpart equipment viz., Braun Horizon NXT

Infusion Pumps by the plaintiff and has addressed a mail to that

effect on 15.03.2012. It is its further case that in reply to the said

email, defendant No.1 has directed its Regional Sales Manager

Mr.Mahender Reddy at Hyderabad to attend to the plaintiff's

requirement and the said person has confirmed the availability of

IV sets named "Intrafix ECO" for the Horizon NXT Pumps and ETD,J CCCA No.248_2019

quoted a price of Rs.17/- per set along with VAT. Thus, in view of

the confirmation, the plaintiff has accepted for the same and gave

his confirmation to the supplier M/s.DOTMed.com and went

ahead and got imported 500 units of pre-owned Braun Horizon

NXT pumps out of proposed 1000 units in the first phase. The

plaintiff has paid for all the necessary charges. After receiving the

first consignment containing the 500 units of pre-owned Braun

Horizon NXT pumps, he contacted the defendant No.1 to arrange

the supply of the compatible IV sets and that the defendant No.1

has supplied one packet of IV sets containing 50 numbers and the

plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.1,050/- towards its charges but the

plaintiff was shocked to know that IV sets were not compatible

with the imported Horizon NXT Infusion Pumps. Immediately, the

plaintiff has intimated about the said fact to the defendant No.1

and requested for arrangement of suitable IV sets. The Regional

Sales Manager of D1 offered to depute their Technical expert

Mr.Ravikanth to check the equipment and find out whether the IV

set is compatible and after due inspection the said person has

informed that they are not compatible to the Horizon NXT Pumps

and the same was informed to defendant No.1. It is the case of

the plaintiff that he suffered a huge loss due to the above contract

because the entire Horizon NXT pumps which were bought by him

were rendered useless without the compatible IV sets. That the ETD,J CCCA No.248_2019

defendant No.1 was careless and negligent and has acted in an

unprofessional manner, thereby making the plaintiff to suffer a

huge loss of Rs.9 Lakhs which includes warehousing charges and

interest thereon. That on account of failure of defendant No.1 and

his breach of agreement, the imported equipment is lying idle and

useless, as a result, the plaintiff suffered huge financial loss and

he also lost his business contacts. When he informed the same to

defendant No.1 and requested to find a solution, defendant No.1

has expressed apologies and had informed that the item is not a

routine item and hence, no confirmation would be given without

checking in all aspects and has expressed his inability with regard

to the non-availability of compatible IV sets and further informed

that there was no written confirmation about supply of compatible

IV sets. Thus, the plaintiff has issued a legal notice dated

19.12.2012 calling upon defendant No.1 to pay Rs.12 lakhs to the

plaintiff as compensation for the failure of non-supply of

compatible IV sets, to which the defendants have issued a reply

and again the plaintiff has issued a rejoinder on 20.02.2013. It is

the further case of the plaintiff that defendant No.1 is a subsidiary

company of defendant No.2 company. Thus, defendant No.2 is

also equally responsible for the acts and the breach of contract of

defendant No.1 and therefore, both are liable to pay his claim.

Thus, he claimed an amount of Rs.13,75,000/- including interest.

ETD,J CCCA No.248_2019

4. The defendants have filed a written statement denying the

averments and have submitted that the plaintiff has raised a false

claim against them. The mail dated 15.03.2012 is admitted and

that in response to the said mail, they have addressed a mail on

16.03.2012 categorically stating that they can supply a different

brand name called "Intrafix Eco" IV sets and not Horizon NXT

Infusion Pumps as asked by the plaintiff company. But the

plaintiff without making any further enquiry as to whether

"Intrafix Eco" would go along with used Braun Horizon infusion

Pumps has blindly proceeded and placed an order with the

distributor in Hyderabad. Subsequent thereto, plaintiff has sent a

mail to Regional Sales Manager of the 1st defendant that they were

unable to connect "Intrafix Eco" IV sets to Horizon NXT sets and

on the very same day, the defendant No.1 responded stating that

the said Horizon NXT is exclusive for markets in USA and that

they are not available in India, as such, the compatible IV sets for

Horizon NXT are not locally available in India. In its response to

the plaintiff mail dated 01.11.2012, they have expressly informed

the plaintiff that they have never assured to provide IV sets

compatible with Horizon NXT and that the plaintiff cannot dispute

this. The defendants have further contended that when the

plaintiff has requested for the compatible IV sets through its mail

dated 02.11.2012, they have responded by saying that the said ETD,J CCCA No.248_2019

compatible sets would cost upto 5 USD per set and the plaintiff

responded seeking a volume base discount on the rates of the IV

sets owing to the large number that the plaintiff offered to

purchase and to their surprise on 03.11.012 the plaintiff has sent

a mail alleging that the 1st defendant indulged in breach of trust

and unfair trade practice and sought to raise a claim that they

had suffered a loss due to the 1st defendant and asked for an

amicable settlement of the issue. Thus, the defendants case is

that they have always been clear that they have agreed to provide

only "intrafix Eco" IV sets and that they cannot provide with the

compatible IV sets with Horizon NXT system and that to the said

mail expressing the high cost of IV sets compatible with Horizon

NXT system, there was no response from the plaintiff. The

plaintiff was careless and failed to verify before placing the order

as to whether he is placing an order for the right product or not

but instead he has simply gone ahead and has ordered for Intrafix

Eco and now because of its failure to use the same with the

Horizon NXT sets, is raising a false claim against the defendants.

5. The 2nd defendant is no way concerned with the alleged

transaction between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant and that

the 2nd defendant is falsely implicated in the present suit. The

defendants have therefore contended that the plaintiff has filed ETD,J CCCA No.248_2019

frivolous claim against them and wants to get benefit out of the

loss suffered due to his own negligence. Therefore, prayed to

dismiss the suit.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed

the following issues for trial:

"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for compensation for monetary loss amounting to Rs.10,75,000/- as prayed for?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- as prayed for?

3. Whether there is cause of action to file the suit?

4. Whether the suit is properly valued?

5. To what relief?"

7. At the time of trial, PW1 was examined on behalf of the

plaintiff and Exs.A1 to A48 were marked. On behalf of the

defendants, DW1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B6 were marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the trial Court has

dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree,

the present appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff.

9. Heard the submissions of N.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel

for the appellant and Sri A.P.Suresh, learned counsel for the

respondents.

ETD,J CCCA No.248_2019

10. The learned appellant counsel submitted that the judgment

passed by the trial Court is totally devoid of merits and contrary

to the evidence placed on record. That the trial Court has failed to

appreciate the documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff

under Exs.A1 to A48 and that the said documents establish their

case against the defendants and that the trial Court ought to have

decreed their suit and that their claim was admitted by DW1

during his cross examination and the same is ignored by trial

Court. He further argued that the unfair trade practices have

been adopted by defendant No.1 and that they have committed a

breach of contract basing on false and fictitious promises and

thus, they are liable to pay the amount claimed by the plaintiff.

He further argued that the plaintiff has suffered a huge loss just

because of the careless attitude of the defendant and that it has

lost its business contacts and that the plaintiff could prove the

negligence and breach of contract committed by defendant No.1

but the trial Court failed to appreciate the same. He argued that

the trial Court failed to consider the admission made by defendant

No.1 that they have deputed one of their engineer to check the

compatibility of IV sets to Horizon NXT to the place of plaintiff and

that if really the defendant No.1 was not under a contractual

obligation, there was no reason for them to send the Engineer to

check the compatibility. Thus, if the trial Court has appreciated ETD,J CCCA No.248_2019

the evidence in a proper perspective, their suit ought to have been

decreed, he therefore prayed this Court to set aside the judgment

and decree passed by the trial Court and allow the present appeal.

11. The learned respondents counsel, on the other hand, has

submitted that the case of the plaintiff is based on a fictitious

claim and that the plaintiff cannot take advantage of his own

wrong and make the defendant responsible to pay for the same.

He further argued that there is no default committed by the

defendants and that the plaintiff himself has raised an indent for

supply of intrafix Eco IV sets inspite of the defendant expressing

that they cannot supply the compatible Iv sets for Horizon NXT

and that now the plaintiff cannot fix up the defendant for the non

compatibility of the IV sets. He further submitted that the trial

Court has appreciated the entire evidence on record and has

arrived at a proper decision of dismissing the suit and has

therefore, prayed this Court to uphold the same.

12. Based on the above rival submissions, this Court frames the

following points for consideration:

1) Whether there was any valid contract between the plaintiff and the defendant? If so, whether there was any breach of contract committed by defendant No.1?

ETD,J CCCA No.248_2019

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for claiming compensation and damages claimed in the suit?

3) Whether the judgment and decree of the trial court is sustainable in law and under the facts?

4) To what relief?

13. POINT NOs.1 AND 2:

a) The case of the plaintiff is that the defendants have

committed breach of contract for which the plaintiff is claiming

compensation as well as damages. Therefore, in the first instance

it has to be examined whether there was any valid contract

between the two parties.

b) A perusal of Ex.A3 reveals that the plaintiff has addressed a

mail to one Mr.Modi on 15.03.2012 saying that one of its principal

have offered 1000 numbers of Braun Horizon NXT Infusion pumps

and that the plaintiff wanted to know whether defendant No.1 can

supply IV sets on a regular basis if they buy the above described

equipment and he also wanted to know the cost. To this, the

defendants have replied on 16.03.2012 stating that they can

supply a different brand by name Intrafix Eco IV sets @ Rs.17/-

per set. Thus, the plaintiff has enquired as to the availability of

the compatible IV sets in the said mail but it cannot be held to be

a concluded contract under Ex.A3.

ETD,J CCCA No.248_2019

c) The plaintiff has filed documents from Exs.A1 to A48 but

none of the documents can be taken to be a valid contract

between the plaintiff and the defendant. On the other hand,

Ex.A8 shows that the defendant has responded to the mail of the

plaintiff saying that they do not have the compatible IV sets but

they have only Intrafix Eco and it has expressed that it has only

Intrafix Eco IV sets @ Rs.17/- per set and that it requested for

confirmation if any. Nowhere it is mentioned that they are

compatible to the NXT IV sets. To say that there is a breach of

contract by the defendants, at first instance there should be a

valid contract between them. The plaintiff failed to place any

piece of evidence showing that there exists a contract between

himself and the defendant. If at all he has received a confirmation

mail saying that the defendant has the compatible IV sets suitable

for Horizon NXT, then the plaintiff could have placed the same on

record but none of the mails show this confirmation.

d) On the other hand, the plaintiff has written to the defendant

saying that on a confirmation about the availability of compatible

IV sets, he has imported the said Horizon NXT sets and thus, has

requested the defendant to ensure the availability of the

compatible IV sets. In response to the said mail, immediately the

defendant has responded saying that the said model Horizon NXT ETD,J CCCA No.248_2019

is sold only in USA and thus, the compatible IV sets are not

available in the Indian market. These mails do not in any way

confirm the availability of the compatible IV sets in India and if at

all the defendant has confirmed in any way that they can supply

the compatible IV sets , the plaintiff should have placed the same

on record but no such piece of evidence is placed by the plaintiff.

In the absence of which, it cannot be held that there was a

concluded contract between the plaintiff and the defendant and as

a result of which, the defendant cannot be held to have committed

any breach of contract.

e) Further, PW1 has admitted that under Ex.A1 in the e-mail

sent by him he has not mentioned the purpose for procurement of

medical equipment mentioned therein and that he also admitted

that in reply to Ex.A1, defendant No.1 has given reply stating that

they have only the IV sets namely Intrafix Eco for the Horizon NXT

Pumps as against the request for compatible IV sets as in Ex.A1.

It is the evidence of PW1 that Ex.A8 is the confirmation given by

defendant No.1 to go ahead with proposed import of product

mentioned in Ex.A1 but a perusal of Ex.A8 reveals that defendant

No.1 has clearly expressed that they have only Intrafix Eco IV sets

@ Rs.17/- per set, but they have no where mentioned in the said

mail that the said Intrafix Eco are compatible to Horizon NXT sets ETD,J CCCA No.248_2019

and they further have asked the plaintiff whether he is interested

to confirm and that they are awaiting confirmation. Thus, Ex.A8

cannot be taken as a confirmation made by defendant No.1 and

PW1 has further admitted that there was no confirmation with

regard to availability of product mentioned in Ex.A1 and also that

defendant Nos.1 and 2 have not given any confirmation to proceed

with the import of 500 units of pre-owned braun horizon NXT

pumps from M/s dot.med.com from overseas. To a specific

question posed in this regard, PW1 has answered negatively

saying that the defendants have not given any confirmation with

regard to the availability of the product mentioned in Ex.A1 and

also that they have not asked the plaintiff to proceed with the

import of the said equipment from abroad. Thus, such an

admission by PW1 and also a perusal of the mails addressed by

the plaintiff to the defendants and the mails received from the

defendant in this regard do not establish any concluded contract

between the plaintiff and the defendants. Thus, though the

plaintiff is under an impression that Ex.A8 itself is a confirmation,

a perusal of Ex.A8 does not reveal the said fact as discussed

supra. Therefore, it is held that there is no valid contract between

the plaintiff and the defendants and as a result of which there

cannot be any breach of contract. When there is no valid

contract, it cannot be held that the defendants committed any ETD,J CCCA No.248_2019

breach of contracts. Therefore, it is held that the defendants are

not liable to pay any amounts as claimed by the plaintiff.

f) It is the contention of the plaintiff that one Mr.Mahender

Reddy, who is the incharge of the defendants company at

Hyderabad has informed him over phone that the infusion sets

are compatible with the Horizon pumps and that the said

Mahender Reddy would depute one technical expert to help in

fixing the IV sets to the Horizon pumps and also that one person

by name Ravikanth was sent in the month of October, 2012 and

that on their examination, they found that the said sets are not

compatible to the Horizon NXT pumps. It is his contention that if

at all the defendants were not aware of the incompatibility they

could not have deputed a person to examine the compatibility.

But on the other hand, it goes against the plaintiff that without

any verification and confirmation as to whether the said IV sets

would be compatible to the Horizon NXT infusion pumps, the

plaintiff has placed an indent for the same and has procured the

same at his own risk.

g) The mails addressed by the plaintiff do not reveal that the

plaintiff had ever enquired with regard to the compatibility of the

said IV set Intrafix Eco to that of Horizon NXT Infusion pumps,

though the defendants have clarified that they can only supply ETD,J CCCA No.248_2019

only Infrafix Eco, the plaintiff did not bother to enquire its

compatibility to horizon NXT.

h) It is elicited through the evidence of DW1 that as per the

request of the plaintiff company they had sent their engineer to

check the machine and that they have supplied the IV sets as per

the requirement placed by the plaintiff company. DW1 has

further admitted that defendant No.1 company is not marketing in

India and that he has not given any authorization to import and

sell the said machine in India and that their company has no

license to market the said machines in India but they sell similar

infusion pumps and it is further admitted by DW1 that they never

informed that they are not marketing the said products in India

i.e. Horizon NXT IV pumps, before they were being imported by

the plaintiff company and it is elicited through DW1 that the

plaintiff never asked their company about the import supply of the

machines. Though the plaintiff tried to elicit from DW1 that

defendant No.1 is aware about their import of Horizon NXT

infusion pumps, he was not successful in eliciting the said fact

from DW1. On the other hand, DW1 has deposed stating that

they do not sell the said Horizon NXT Pumps in India but they sell

similar pumps.

ETD,J CCCA No.248_2019

i) A perusal of Ex.B6 reveals that it is a mail addressed by the

plaintiff to the defendants on 08.11.2012 saying that to his mail

dated 15.03.2012 informing his intention to import 1000 numbers

of used Horizon NXT Infusion Pumps and his enquiry with regard

to the availability of compatible IV sets he is referred by Mr.Mody

to Mr.Mahender Reddy, the Regional Manager, at Hyderabad and

that he called Mr.Reddy on 16.03.2012 to which Mr.Reddy has

confirmed the availability of compatible IV sets to the Horizon NXT

Pumps by name Intrafix eco and quoted a price of Rs.17/- per

each set. A perusal of the said mail dated 16.03.2012 which is

filed under Ex.A9, reveals that the defendant has never stated

that intrafix eco is compatible to Horizon NXT infusion Pumps.

Thus, it is the apprehension and assumption of the plaintiff that

the said IV set is compatible to Horizon NXT Infusion Pumps.

Nowhere in the mail dated 16.03.2012, it is mentioned that the

said IV set is compatible to NXT infusion pumps, which falsifies

the case of the plaintiff.

j) The learned appellant counsel has relied upon a decision in

Motilal Padmapat Sugar Mills Co.Pvt.Ltd., v. State of U.P. 1,

wherein the Apex Court has discussed about the Doctrine of

Estoppel and held that the true principle of promissory estoppels

AIR 1979 SC 621 ETD,J CCCA No.248_2019

therefore, seems to be that where one party has by his words or

conduct made the other a clear and unequivocal promise which

intended to create a legal relations or affect a legal relationship to

arise, knowing or intending that it would be acted upon by the

other party and if it is in fact so acted upon by the other party,

then the promise would be binding on the party making it and he

would not be entitled to go back upon it. If it would be inequitable

to allow him to do so having regard to the dealings which have

taken place between the parties and this would be so irrespective

of whether there is any pre-existing relationship between the

parties or not. Thus, the counsel argued that though there is no

express contract between the plaintiff and the defendants, the

communication made between them and the way they have acted

upon by supplying the equipment, there seems to be a pre-

existing relationship between the parties and thus, it has to be

taken as concluded contract and that the defendant cannot go

back on the terms of contract. But a perusal of the said emails as

discussed supra would reveal that the defendant was clear

enough in stating that he has only Introfix Eco IV Set and that

nowhere he has committed that it is suitable to that Horizon NXT

Injusion Pumps, therefore, it cannot be inferred that there was a

pre-existing contract in this case.

ETD,J CCCA No.248_2019

k) Further, the learned counsel relied upon a decision in

Coffee Board Karnataka v. Commercial Taxes, Karnataka 2,

wherein it was held that offer and acceptance need not always be

in an elementary form, nor does the law of contract or sale of

goods required that the consent to a contract must be expressed.

Offer and acceptance can be spelt out from the conduct of the

parties which cover not only their acts but omissions as well. He

further relied upon a decision in Bharat Petroleum Corp Ltd. V.

Great Eastern Shipping Co.Ltd., 3 wherein it was held that the

general rule is that an offer is not accepted by mere silence on the

part of the offerree, yet it does not mean that an acceptance

always has to be given so in words. Under certain circumstances,

offerree's silence, coupled with his conduct, which takes the form

of a positive act, may constitute the acceptance - an agreement

sub silentio. Therefore, the terms of the contract between the

parties can be proved not only by their words but also by their

conduct. Through, these case laws the counsel stressed upon the

point that from the conduct of the parties, offer and acceptance

can be made out. It is once again reiterated in this regard that

the conduct of the party in the present case do not lead to an

inference of accepting an offer. The plaintiff has requested for

(1988) 3 SCC 262

AIR 2008 SCC 357 ETD,J CCCA No.248_2019

supply of compatible IV set but the defendant has in clear terms

stated that it could supply only Introfix Eco IV Sets and nowhere

it has specified that it is suitable to Horizon NXT Infusion Pumps

and is waiting for the acceptance of the plaintiff. However, there

is no further communication in this regard by the plaintiff, thus,

it cannot be said to have been an acceptance of the said offer.

l) The only issue that has to be looked into is whether there

was a concluded contract between the plaintiff and the defendants

with regard to the supply of IV sets compatible to Horizon NXT.

There is no evidence on record to show that the defendants have

agreed to supply Horizon NXT compatible IV sets to the plaintiff.

m) In view of the discussion held supra, it is held that there

was no concluded contract between the plaintiff and the

defendant and thus, question of its breach does not arise at all.

Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any compensation

or damages. Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

14. POINT NO.3:

In view of the reasoned findings arrived at point Nos.1 and

2, it is held that the judgment and decree passed by the trial

Court are found to be well reasoned and hence, they are held to ETD,J CCCA No.248_2019

be sustainable in law and under the facts and circumstances of

the case.

15. POINT NO.4:

In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the

judgment and decree, dated 20.02.2019 passed in O.S.No.833 of

2013 by the learned IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad. No costs.

Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in this appeal

shall stand closed.

_________________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Date: 10.06.2025 ns