M RAZA AND SONS Vs. RUGS WHOLESALE INC
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
M.RAZA AND SONS
RUGS WHOLESALE INCL.
Click here to view full 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.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.