MAZAGON DOCK LTD Vs. SREE POWER AGENCIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/defendant has projected this appeal as against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No,6945 of 1996 dated 11.08.1997 on the file of V Additional Court, City Civil Court, Chennai.

(2.) THE necessary summation of respondent/plaintiff's case are as follows: THE appellant/defendant has called for Tender No.OP/HING/CAP/M 13 Portable DG set for the supply of 15 Nos. of 125 KVA Diesel Generating sets. THE respondent/plaintiff has filed their Quotation No. SPA/MDS/7637/83 dated 30.12.1983, for the supply of 10 Nos. 60 KVA and 110/125 KVA New Diesel Generator sets. THE appellant/defendant has decided to accept the quotation put forward by the respondent/plaintiff and called for discussions. After discussions with the officers of the appellant/defendant, the respondent/plaintiff by its letter dated 15.03.1984 has confirmed the decisions and acceptances taken at the discussions. As per the said confirmation letter it has been agreed that five sets will be delivered after three weeks from the date of issue of order in writing and that subsequently five sets will be delivered every week. In regard to the payment of 90% of the invoice claims should be made against the discharge documents/proforma invoices, through bank and the balance of 10% against commissioning. THE appellant/defendant has agreed to pay for trollies to be delivered separately.

(3.) BY letter dated 23.01.1987, the respondent/plaintiff has demanded payment of 10% towards the supplies made against the purchase orders pending and also pointed out to the appellant/defendant that only one number Anti Vibrational Mounting per trolly instead of 10 Nos. per trolly have been included. It has been pointed out to the appellant/defendant that 10 Nos. of Anti Vibrational Mounting have been acquired per trolly at Rs.745/- each and the differences for 9 Nos. of trolly has to be paid by appellant/defendant and hence claimed a sum of Rs.1,93,934.60ps. With interest at 18% per annum for all the delayed payments made by the appellant/defendant. In this regard, a letter dated 07.02.1996 has been sent to the appellant/defendant demanding the payments due. BY letter dated 14.07.1987 the respondent/plaintiff has reiterated its claim and demanded the pending payment by 30.07.1987. It has been pointed out that the bank guarantee dated 19.08.1985 has been submitted at appellant/defendants Bombay Office during the third week of August, 1985 and had refused to accept the same.