VIDHI INFOTECH Vs. RAVI COLOUR LAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. B.K. Upadhyaya, learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment dated August 20, 2002. Apparently the appeal is barred by time. However, learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant -firm never received notice of the complaint of the respondent, No. 222/2001. The impugned ex parte judgment appears to indicate that the service of notice as evident from paper No. 10 on record of the lower Court's file was sufficient. It is significant to note that the address of the appellant as noted in the complaint is the same as described on the credit bill of the appellant at paper No. 17. The complainant initiated execution proceedings in 2008 but neither there is any evidence to prove mala fide on his part; nor any intention of cheating or committing fraud is there. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the appellant's contention that the service of notice of the complaint was not sufficient as the notice was sent on a wrong address.

(2.) MOREOVER , the appellant has fairly conceded receipt of Rs. 10,000 from the respondent as earnest money in token of its promise to supply Colour Doppler Machine worth Rs. 2,00,000. The respondent subsequent to the date of booking of the machine cancelled his order and claimed his money back. The contention of the appellant that another software known as Fotonext software with all features worth Rs. 10,000 was supplied to the respondent does not seem to be well supported by convincing evidence. Mere credit bill at page 17 will not help the appellant unless delivery of the software to the respondent is established with the receipt in writing of such software. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the appellant's version of the earnest money having been adjusted against the price of the software.

(3.) THE plea of jurisdiction too is not sustainable as the complainant's allegation in his complaint was that he booked the machine through the local agent namely Sri Chakraman.