Sabina, J. - (1.) PLAINTIFF Food Corporation of India (FCI for short) filed a suit for recovery against the rice mill -Defendants -mill.
(2.) THE case of the FCI, in brief, was that a policy had been framed by the Central Government and under the said policy, the FCI used to purchase paddy from the market and give it to the millers for shelling. Defendants -mill -mill had agreed to shell the paddy as per its storage capacity. The paddy stored under the mill was to remain in joint custody of the FCI and the mill. As per the policy of the Central Government, 67 % of superfine rice was required to be delivered out of the paddy supplied to the Defendants -mill. The Defendants -mill had agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of the said agreement. The Defendants -mill had furnished the requisite security in terms of the agreement. The Defendants -mill was also responsible for the safe custody of paddy supplied to it for milling and delivery of rice as per the agreement. Losses, if any, incurred during the transit or storage were to be made good by the Defendants -mill @ 1 1/2 time of economic costs of the variety of paddy/ rice. The Defendants -mill was required to deliver the rice within ten days of issuance of supply of paddy at regular intervals. As per schedule, 20% of rice was to be delivered in the months of October/ November 1994, 26% in December 1994, 26% in the month of January 1995 and 28% in the month of February 1995. The Defendants -mill had, however, failed to shell the paddy and as such it became liable to pay 1 1/2 time of economic costs of paddy supplied to it. The total paddy stored in the premises of the Defendants -mill was 13937 bags weighing 9053.25 quintals of superfine paddy. Since the Defendants -mill had failed to shell the paddy, the Plaintiff dispatched 5120 bags weighing 3226.60 quintals of paddy before 31.5.1995. Cost of the remaining paddy was assessed at Rs.876.21 per quintal @ 1 1/2 time of the economic cost i.e. Rs.51,00,369/ -on 1.6.1995. Since the Defendants -mill failed to shell the paddy, it was decided to sell it. As such 2882 bags of paddy weighing 1756 quintals were sold at Rs.395/ -per quintal, 1831 bags weighing 1028 quintals were sold at Rs.240/ -per quintal. Accordingly, a total sum of Rs.9,40,340/ -was recovered from the sale of the said paddy. Out of the remaining paddy 4160 bags were retrieved and their value was assessed at Rs.395/ -per quintal weighing 2555.80 quintals amounting to Rs.10,09,541/ -. An expenditure of Rs.24,906/ -was incurred by the Plaintiff on retrieving the paddy and as such it entitled to recover Rs.31,80,448/ -plus Rs.14,78,905/ -as interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 1.6.1995 to 31.1.1998. Hence, the FCI was entitled to recover a total sum of Rs.46,59,343/ -from the Defendants -mill with future interest at the same rate. Defendants -mill, in its written statement, averred that the paddy was stored in the premises of the Defendants -mill on rental basis. The execution of agreement to shell the paddy between the parties was denied. Rest of the contentions made in the plaint have been denied.
(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court: 1. Whether the District Manager is duly authorised to file the present suit? OPP 2. Whether the Defendants entered into an agreement to sell the paddy from time to time with the Plaintiff as alleged ? OPP 3. Whether the Defendant has not supplied the rice after shelling, as alleged? OPP 4. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.46,59,343/ -as alleged? OPP;