SANJIB BANERJEE,J. - (1.) The company is not represented even at the second call. No affidavit-in-opposition has been filed though a copy-affidavit has been made over to the petitioner.
(2.) The petitioner claims on account of price of goods sold and delivered. The petitioner apparently supplied material for the purpose of the irrigation system at the company's tea garden. The petitioner claims that a principal sum of Rs. 1,29, 698/- is due in terms of the purchase order placed by the company on the petitioner. The petitioner has relied on the purchase order and on the bills and delivery receipts. The petitioner's statutory notice of March 16, 2010 narrated that the petitioner had effected the supply and the company had failed to make any payment.
(3.) The company responded by a letter dated April 20, 2010 issued by Advocate on its behalf. The company complained that the petitioner could not meet the supply schedule as indicated in the purchase order and the petitioner did not supply all the goods mentioned therein. The company referred to oral conversation on its behalf with a certain representative of the petitioner and the company having written letters dated February 4, 2009 and February 25, 2009 to the petitioner complaining of the goods supplied and the apparent failure of the system. In addition, the company claimed in its response to the statutory notice that the irrigation system did not work for which the company suffered loss and damage.;