M/S. STAR PRINTING PRESS Vs. M/S. BHARAT COKING COAL LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant claiming a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/ - (one lakh and twenty thousand) together with costs and interest pendente lite and future. The aforementioned amount was claimed with regard to the goods supplied by the plaintiff from time to time as per supply orders by the defendant through its representative of the respective areas and submitted the bills for payment as mentioned in details in the schedule A and B appended to the plaint. The defendant in its written statement inter alia, took the plea that the suit was not maintainable, that there was no written agreement or offer for the purchase of goods and that the rate quoted by the plaintiff was excessive and arbitrary. The learned court below after perusing the evidences on the record came to the conclusion that orders were being placed by the defendant company upon the plaintiff for supply of goods from time to time and the plaintiff has been supplying such goods on the basis of such order. According to the learned court below such practice was prevalent in B.C.C.L. and as such it was held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the amount in respect of the goods supplied.

(2.) The learned court below, however, by the impugned judgment granted a decree for a sum of Rs. 90,468.49/ - (ninety thousand four hundred sixty eight and forty nine paise) only. The learned court below rejected the plaintiff's claim on three counts: - - (a) With regard to the supply made on 2.11.1973 it was held that the plaintiff was not entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,872.48 Paise (two thousand eight hundred seventy two and forty eight paise) in respect of the bill no. 463 of the same date, Ext. 4/z -37, on the ground that the same was barred by limitation. (b) It was further held that the claim of Rs. 15,589.92/ - (fifteen thousand five hundred eighty nine and ninety two paise) in respect of the value of the materials supplied to Gazlit colliery and Tetulmari colliery no challan in respect of the first two items of schedule 'C' and first two items of schedule 'D' and first two items of schedule 'A' of the plaint were proved. (c) The plaintiff's claim of interest to the extent of Rs. 11,000/ - and odd was also rejected on the ground that there was no written agreement between the parties to pay any amount of interest on the unpaid balance amount of the bills.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he does not press this appeal with regard to the finding of the learned court below relating to the bill dated 2.11.1973 as the same is barred by limitation, in view of the fact that the suit was instituted on 15.11.1976. So far as second item is concerned it appears that the judgment of the learned court below is erroneous. The entire defence of the defendant has been summarised in paragraph 9 of the written statement. From a perusal of the aforementioned statement made in the written statement it will appear that there had not been any denial with regard to the supply of materials by the plaintiff. From the plaint it would appear that the plaintiff has given in details the supply made by it to the defendant company and also specified areas where such supplies were made.