R.P. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. vs Gupta Sales Agencies

Sunil Gaur, J.—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.

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.

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.

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 pendente lite and future interest @ 9% per annum. Hence this appeal.

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.

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.

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.

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.

With the dismissal of this appeal, the pending application being C.M. Appl. No. 3881/2008 also dismissed and stands disposed of.