M RAZA AND SONS Vs. RUGS WHOLESALE INC
LAWS(DLH)-2007-1-30
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on January 25,2007

M.RAZA AND SONS Appellant
VERSUS
RUGS WHOLESALE INCL. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

GITA MITTAL, J. - (1.) This suit for recovery of Rs.21,52,618/- has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendants on grounds of non-payment of the amounts towards goods which were supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant no. 1. The plaintiff, a registered partnership firm with its principal place of business at A-54, Nizamuddin(East), New Delhi-110013, is engaged inter alia in the business of manufacture and export of Persian-Kashmir carpets, chainstitched rugs and pashmina shawls. The plaintiff has also claimed registration under the export- import policy for registered export with the Directorate of Handicrafts of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir. The plaintiff also holds a certificate of registration in its favour from the Directorate of Handicrafts of the Government of India under the import/export plicy.
(2.) The defendant no. 1, a company incorporated under the laws of Canada, is carrying on business of imports and distribution in Canada. Mr. Jim Oberoi/Gorlal Oberoi is a director in the defendant no. 1 company,. The defendant no. 1 was conducting its affairs in India through Mr. Shrikant Saxena, the defendant no. 2, as its buying agent. Amongst the responsibilities of the defendant no. 2, he was required to place orders upon suppliers of the defendant no. 1, provide them with designs and colour combinations, follow up with the production activity and finally inspect each and every carpet, put seals of approval on every rug and thereafter issue inspection certificates to the suppliers. The defendant no. 2 has so conducted itself in the execution of the orders which were placed by the defendant no. 1 on the plaintiff which are the subject matter of the present case. The defendant no. 3, the Toronto Dominian Bank is a foreign bank who has been sued in its capacity as a collecting agent for the plaintiff's principal bankers i.e. The Punjab National Bank, Srinagar. The plaintiff has attributed non-collection of the amount of invoices from the defendant no. 1 upon the defendant no. 3 and consequently arrayed it as a party before this court.
(3.) So far as the record of this court is concerned, the defendant no. 1 was served by publication of a citation in the overseas addition of 'The Statesman' pursuant to orders dated 30.5.2002. Despite service, the defendant no. 1 did not put in appearance and also chose not to file the written statement. In these circumstances, the defendant no. 1 was directed to be proceeded ex-parte by an order passed on 27th July, 2006.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.