TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION, (COIMBATORE DIVISION Vs. M/S. ELGI RUBBER COMPANY LTD., REP.BY MR. S.R. VENKATACHALAM, VICE PRESIDENT, NO.2000, TRICHY ROAD, SINGANALLUR,COIMBATORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant who suffered a decree for payment of money with interest is the appellant. The suit in O.S.No.550/2004 was filed by the plaintiff seeking recovery of sum of Rs.8,93,848.00 (Rupees Eight Lakhs Ninety Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Forty Eight only) with further interest at the rate of 13% per annum on Rs.6,54,092.00 (Rupees Six Lakhs Fifty Four Thousand Ninety Two only) from the date of suit till the date of realisation. The defendant, a Transport Corporation, had entered into an agreement with the plaintiff for lease of 7 Tyre Electric Chamber, Buffer, Builder and Inspection Spreader which are used in re-treading of Automobile Tyres. The lease agreement is evidenced by Ex.A-1 dated 04.04.1996. Under the lease agreement defendant has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.13,500.00 (Rupees Thirteen Thousand Five hundred only) per month as nominal leasing charges. The agreement Ex.A-1 provides, among other things, for purchase of Precured Tread Rubber from the plaintiff alone till the lease is in vogue. Pursuant to the said agreement, the defendant issued purchase orders on various dates to the plaintiff for supply of Precured Tread Rubber. There is no dispute regarding the other purchase orders except the purchase orders dated 30.03.2001 and 12.04.2001 marked as Ex.A-2 & Ex.A-3. According to the plaintiff, under these two purchase orders, the defendant has placed orders for supply of Precured Tread Rubber at Rs.85.43 Per Kilogram. It is not in dispute that the quantity mentioned under both purchase orders has been supplied by the plaintiff. While so, by an order dated 07.08.2001, the defendant unilaterally amended the two purchase orders and reduced the price Per Kilogram from Rs.85.43 to Rs.66.60 Per Kilogram. This action of the defendant was not accepted by the plaintiff and since the defendant did not come forward to pay the difference in price despite several demands, the plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery.

(2.) The suit was resisted by the defendant on various grounds. According to the defendant, there was no agreement regarding the price of the goods to be purchased from the plaintiff. The defendant would contend that when a subsequent tender that was called for supply of the same material, the plaintiff itself had quoted a price of Rs.57.41 Per Kilogram of Precured Tread Rubber. Taking that quotation into account, according to the defendant, the price was reduced and the prices offered in two invoices dated 30.03.2001 and 104.2001 was not paid. It was also contended that the suit was barred by limitation. According to the defendant, the invoices are dated 30.03.2001 and 104.2001. A credit period of 30 days is allowed and therefore, the suit ought to have been filed before 106.2004. On the above pleadings, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, (FTC-I), Coimbatore framed the following issues :

(3.) On the side of the plaintiff, one Radhakrishnan was examined as P.W-1 and Exs.A-1 to Ex.A-22 were marked. On the side of the defendant, one Devaraj was examined as DW-1, and Exs.B-1 to Ex.B-3 were marked. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Judge concluded that the unilateral scaling down of the prices cannot be accepted. In the absence of any agreement between the parties, the purchase order alone will be treated as the terms of the contract. Having placed an order to purchase the Tread Rubber at a price of Rs.85.43 Per Kilogram, the defendant cannot unilaterally reduce the price.