9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 826X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the Defendant's factory at SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Cuddalore. The Plaintiff had given a letter dated 11.1.1994 with specification sheets and terms and conditions. Further letters were issued on 19.3.1994 and 19.5.1994, accepting the contract. The said lift was a special type with flame proof facility. A contract was allotted to purchase by contract dated 27.6.1994. The contract price of the lift was Rs. 9,07,000/-. The price adjustment was Rs. 59,213/- and the sales tax was Rs. 1,29,859/-. The total price was Rs. 1,96,072/-. The Defendant had paid an advance of Rs. 2,58,150/-. Out of the balance of Rs. 8,37,922/-, leaving 10% of the contract price, namely, Rs. 90,700/-, which was payable on completion of the installation, a sum of Rs. 7,47,222/- was payable by the Defendant. 3. It had been stated that the Defendant had to make the building suitable for installation of the lift and only thereafter, can the Plaintiff commence the installation. Consequently, the deadline for supply and installation of the lift was depending on the Defendant completing the building in time. It had been stated that the Defendant delayed in construction of the building. The Plaintiff raised i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9.5.1995. It had been further stated that on 30.8.1995, the Defendant agreed to receive the materials. It had been stated that only out of frustration, the Defendant cancelled the contract by letter dated 23.6.1997. Advocate notices were exchanged. It had been stated that the Plaintiff had paid an advance of Rs. 2,58,150/-. Consequently, the Defendant claimed that they were liable to claim 18% interest on the said advance amount and claimed a counter claim of Rs. 3,85,934/-. 5. The Plaintiff filed a reply statement to the said counter claim, denying the liability towards the counter claim. They had stated that they had started the installation work in good faith. They had further stated that it was the Defendant, who was at fault, since they did not make the building ready for installation of the lift. It had been stated that the materials were despatched on 12.9.1995 and completed by 12.7.1996. It had been stated that the Defendant had changed the design in the factory in such a way that use of the lift was not required. It was therefore stated that the Defendant had unilaterally cancelled the contract. It had been stated that the Defendant is not entitled for refund of the advan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Defendant marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D37. 9. Issue (1) and (4):- It is an admitted fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant had entered into an agreement for supply of lift materials for erection in the factory premises of the Defendant at Sipcot Industrial Complex, Cuddalore. An order was placed on 24.2.1994. The Plaintiff had given a letter dated 11.1.1994, giving the specification sheets and terms and conditions. Further letters dated 19.3.1994 and 18.5.1994 had been issued by the Plaintiff. It is also an admitted fact that the lift to be supplied and erected is a special type of lift with flame proof facility. It was not a standard type. It was specifically designed for the requirement of the Defendant and it could not be used anywhere. A contract was entered into on 27.6.1994. The contract price of the lift was fixed at Rs. 9,07,000/-. There was a price adjustment of Rs. 59,213/-. This was to be used in case of escalation of prices. The sales tax paid was Rs. 1,29,859/-. 10. At the outset, it has to be mentioned that the price adjustment amount of Rs. 59,213/- had been fixed on an assumption that there might be escalation of prices. Consequently, I hold that the Plaintiff is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the date of the plaint till the date of judgement. Towards this decreetal amount, the Plaintiff has to prefer a claim with the Official Liquidator and the Official Liquidator has to discharge the said claim in accordance with the rules and in accordance with prorata basis as other claims of similar nature are settled. Issue (1) is answered accordingly. 12. Issue (2):- The Plaintiff had supplied materials. It is the contention of the Defendant that the Plaintiff had delayed in erection of the lift. It is the specific contention of the Defendant that they had intimated the Plaintiff by letters dated 6.5.1994, 2.4.1995, 20.5.1995 and 29.5.1995. The Plaintiff was informed that there was continuous delay in supply of the materials. It had been further stated in the written statement that till 4.7.1995, there was no information about the despatch of the materials. Subsequently, on 13.7.1995, the Defendant informed the Plaintiff that their representative Thiagarajan had visited the factory, but the materials had not reached the place. Even at the earliest stage, the Defendant had been demanding repayment of the advance amount paid. The Plaintiff stated that the materials were dispatche ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
