Decided on May 11,2018

Sanghi Textile Ltd Appellant
Rama Water And Co Respondents


Mir Alfaz Ali, J. - (1.) This second appeal by the defendant is filed against the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2007 passed by learned Addl. District Judge (FTC), Guwahati in Money Suit No. 15/2006, whereby learned District Judge, reversing the judgment of learned Munsiff No.1, Guwahati in M.S. No. 28/1999, decreed the suit of the plaintiff.
(2.) The brief facts leading to the present second appeal are that the respondent, as plaintiff, filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 307528/- from the appellant. The case of the plaintiff was that the plaintiff co. was dealing in M.S. flat, angles, plates, chanels etc. On assurance of the defendant company to make payment, plaintiff sold some goods vide bill Nos. 96-97/2053/17 dated 13.7.96 for an amount of Rs. 3,09,000.00 and bill No. 96- 97/2053/20 dated 29.7.96 for an amount of Rs. 2,92,328/-. Out of total amount of Rs. 6,01,328/-, the defendant co. paid Rs. 4 lacs vide cheque No. 232577 dated 03.10.96 and the balance amount remained unpaid. When the defendant co. failed to pay the balance amount, the plaintiff wrote the letter dated 19.11.97 (exhibit-4) to the defendant co. for payment of Rs. 6,01,328/- and the defendant co. reciprocated vide letter dated 10.12.97 (exhibit-5), stating that because of labour problems, the payment could not be made and agreed to take up the matter in due course. As the defendant co. failed to pay the money despite repeated demand, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the amount above mentioned, which included the principal amount of the Rs. 2,01,328/- and interest thereon. In the written statement the defendant co. denied the purchase of any article from the plaintiff, however admitted the payment of Rs. 4 lakhs as stated in the plaint with a plea, that such payment of Rs. 4 lakhs to the plaintiff was for some other transactions. On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned Munsiff framed the following issues 1. Is the suit maintainable in its present form ? 2. Is there is any cause of action for the suit ? 3. Is the defendant liable to pay an amount of Rs. 3,07,528/- to the plaintiff ? 4. Is the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as claimed upon ?
(3.) The plaintiff co. examined one witness and proved certain documents in support of it's claim. The defendant did not adduce any witness and after hearing the parties, learned Munsiff dismissed the suit.;

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