PANKAJ BAID S/O UMED SINGH BAID Vs. BAWA MASALA COMPANY
LAWS(GAU)-2018-8-62
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on August 17,2018

Pankaj Baid S/O Umed Singh Baid Appellant
VERSUS
Bawa Masala Company Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Kalyan Rai Surana, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. J.C. Gaur, the learned advocate for the petitioner as well as Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, the learned senior advocate, assisted by Ms. S. Katakey, the learned advocate for the respondent.
(2.) By this revision under Section 115 CPC read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.10.2017, passed by the learned Civil Judge No.2, Kamrup (Metropolitan), Guwahati, in Misc. (J) Case No. 20/2017, arising in Money Suit No. 2/2016, by which, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 21 CPC, the plaint was returned for filing the same before the appropriate Court at Delhi.
(3.) The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that in this case, the petitioner was appointed as C&F Agent for the respondent in the first week of June, 2013 for Assam and other North Eastern States excluding areas where the respondent already had agents. It is submitted that the petitioner had handed over security deposit of Rs.1.00 Lakh and made payment of stocks sent vide bill dated 13.06.2013, but thereafter, the respondent did not provide the marketing support by not appointing sales representatives despite repeated request. It is also submitted that when the respondents became aware of the various issues raised by the petitioner, very cleverly, the respondent sent a C&F Agreement to the petitioner on 16.10.2013 for signature. On good faith, the petitioner had signed the same on 06.11.2013 and also made payment for goods supplied vide bill dated 09.11.2013. But, the respondent did not appoint sales representatives and unilaterally terminated the C&F Agency vide letter dated 23.01.2014, falsely blaming the petitioner. It is submitted that after receipt of termination letter, the petitioner had requested for settlement of accounts and, as such, the respondent had asked for return of unsold goods, as such, unsold goods valued at Rs.4,86,956.56 was returned back on 21.05.2014. But, the respondent by not settling the account, had cheated the petitioner. In the process, the petitioner had suffered loss of Rs.7,45,434.50 on false promise made by the respondent. Hence, the suit was filed.;


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