BARNWAL MARKETING Vs. GEE PEE INFOTECH PVT. LTD.
LAWS(CAL)-2014-11-92
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on November 07,2014

Barnwal Marketing Appellant
VERSUS
Gee Pee Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This application has taken out by the plaintiff/petitioner praying for a judgment upon admission against the respondent for the sum of Rs. 54,05,000/-. The petitioner's Case:
(2.) The petitioner's case is that a tripartite agreement dated September 19, 2009 was entered into by and between the petitioner, the respondent and the respondents C & F agent Sunrise Telelinks Pvt. Ltd. wherein the petitioner was appointed by the respondent as a super distributor for mobile handsets/phones in various parts of West Bengal. According to the said arrangement the petitioner was required to first pay the price of the products and then collect the products from Sunrise and then distribute the same. In or about July 2010, the respondent approached the petitioner with request for a loan of Rs. 50 lakhs repayable on demand with 3 per cent interest per month for expansion of the business of the respondent. The petitioner agreed to advance such loan and transferred the amount of Rs. 50 lakhs to the respondent's bank by way of RTGS on August 2, 2010. On the same day, the petitioner also handed over a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs in cash to the respondent on account of advance to be made to Sunrise. The said money was then paid by the respondent to Sunrise against which the petitioner collected goods from time to time.
(3.) The respondent failed to make payment on account of interest on the said loan. From February 2011, the petitioner repeatedly called on the respondent to arrange for repayment of the said loan of Rs. 50 lakhs along with interest but the respondent kept on requesting for time to make such repayment. On or about April 9, 2011 the respondent handed over to the petitioner a post dated cheque of Rs. 50 lakhs towards the principal amount and another post dated cheque for Rs. 4,05,000/- towards service of interest for three months. Both the cheques were dated July 1, 2011. At the time of handing over the said cheques the respondent's representative duly acknowledged the fact that those cheques were being made over for payment of the loan by endorsing the same on Photostat copies of the cheques (Annexures "B" and "C" to the petition).;


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