UNION OF INDIA Vs. BATLIBOI AND COMPANY
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
UNION OF INDIA
BATLIBOI AND COMPANY LIMITED
Click here to view full judgement.
Yogeshwar Dayal -
(1.)This is a petition for revision on behalf of Union of India against an order of Additional District ludge, dt. 20.10.81 dismissing an application for leave to defend filed by the petitioner and decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent, under Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Code for recovery of Rs.84, 862-49 ps.
(2.)The plaintiff-respondent filed aforesaid suit for recovery of aforesaid amount inter alia on the allegations that the petitioner through the Director General of Supplies and Disposals, New Delhi, placed an order dt. 12.6.1978 upon the respondent Company for the purchase of goods as mentioned in the aforesaid order. In terms of that order the respondent Company supplied the goods which were accepted by the petitioner. Accordingly, there is no dispute between the parties with regard to the supply of goods. The respondent Company further alleged that as per terms and conditions, the respondent submitted bill dt. 9.10.1979 representing 95% of the goods sold amounting to Rs. 72, 999.39 but the petitioner had failed to pay the amount and thereafter the plaintiff served a notice U/S 80 of the Civil Procedure Code on the petitioner and also claimed interest w.e.f. 9.10 1979 and thus claimed the aforesaid amount.
(3.)The defendant-Union of India being served with the summons in the prescribed form filed the application for leave to defend. Apart form various other pleas, the defendant took a plea that as per clause-26 of the schedule to tender, the defendant was within its right to with-hold the amount of Rs. 72, 999.39 against the expenses incurred by the Union of India in carrying out modifications and repairs of the machines supplied by the plaintiff in compliance of another acceptance offender dt. 6.12.1974. The said contract was governed by arbitration clause and the dispute arising out of the said contract had to be referred to arbitration and the Union of India is referring the same to arbitration. The claim of interest was also denied. The defendant had also taken the plea that the suit under Order 37, Civil Procedure Code is not maintainable. The learned trial Court held that the suit under Order 37 is maintainable and that the plaintiff Company was entitled to interest in view of the alleged notice served by the plaintiff on defendant.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.