(1.) This appeal suit is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Court-cum-Fast Track Court in O.S.No.109 of 2005. The substance of the plaint is that, the first plaintiff firm is manufacturer of Hosiery Garments. The first defendant firm represented by the second defendant used to collect orders from foreign buyers and transfer the order to the manufacturers like plaintiffs and get commission at the rate of 5% of the total value of the order placed and executed. While so, a sum of Rs.18,65,279/- had been paid over and above the commission payable to the defendant which is to be returned. When, notice was sent to the defendant to repay the money paid in excess, the defendant replied making counter claim. Therefore, the present suit for recovery of money with interest.
(2.) Per contra, in the written statement, it is contended by the defendants that the first defendant firm is in the trade of procuring orders from intended purchasers of Hosiery Garments outside the country. As per the trade practice, the first defendant used to procure orders for supply of Hosiery Garments from intended purchaser and transfer the purchase advice to the manufacturers like first plaintiff by way of "transfer advice". The difference between the "Vendor price" and "buyer price" will be the remuneration/commission. The payment to the defendant will be paid by the manufacturer on realisation of the sale consideration. In this case, as per the trade practise, the plaintiffs have paid the commission after being satisfied on the debit notes raised by the defendants. As per the account maintained by the first defendant a sum of Rs.20,72,028/- is still due from the plaintiff to the first defendant. Thus, the counter claim for the said is made in the written statement.
(3.) Based on the pleadings, the trial Court has framed following issues;