PAWAN BAGARIA Vs. GONTERMANN PEILPERS INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in Civil Suit No. 390 of 2003 has filed this application (G.A. No. 101 of 2003) dated January 3rd, 2003. It prays for rejection of the plaint, and in the alternative, for referring the disputes involved in the suit to arbitration in view of section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The plaintiff has filed opposition dated March 21st, 2003. The defendant has filed a reply dated March 26th, 2003.

(2.) Mr. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the defendant, has raised three contentions - (1) the plaint does not disclose a cause of action against the defendant; (2) the suit is barred by law; (3) the contract on which the suit is based contains an arbitration agreement, and hence the parties should be referred to arbitration. Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel for the plaintiff, has refuted these contentions.

(3.) Mr. Chatterjee first submits that admittedly, the defendant purchased M.S. melting scraps from M/s. Shree Balaji Steels having it place of business at 23A, Netaji Subhas Road, 1st Floor, Room No. 27, Calcutta-700 001. It was an unregistered partnership firm. Purchase orders placed by the defendant during the period from 1997 to 2000 will show that it entered into contracts with this partnership firm. From time to time payments were made by the defendant to this partnership firm. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for realisation of price for goods sold by this partnership firm during the period from 1997 to 2000. In the plaintiff has stated that the goods were sold by him to the defendant against the purchase orders placed by it in favour of the partnership firm. The plaintiff has not stated anything in the plaint how he is entitled to recover the alleged dues from the defendant on the basis of the sales contracts to which the plaintiff was not a party. Admittedly, at no point of time there was any privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. The case made out in the plaint does not disclose a cause of action against the defendant. Hence in view of provisions in Order 7 Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ?the CPC?) the plaint is liable to be rejected.