TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 879X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year after the installation and still it only raises an apprehension that the plastic mesh may break. Such an apprehension was even removed by the petitioner as is evident from its e-mail dated 05.03.2014 (Annexure P) wherein the petitioner talks about visiting the Haridwar plant of the respondent on 14.02.2014 and of changing the issue pellet with steel deck pellet and further request for clearing its dues. Even then nothing was paid. The petitioner went on sending requests to the respondent through e-mails but the respondent did not answer. Where the goods were installed and commissioned to the satisfaction of the respondent on 21.01.2013 and on 21.03.2013 and where the respondent admitted its liability on 9.12.2013 (Annexure N) but r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that in its e-mail dated 09.12.2013 the officials of the respondent rather admitted a sum of ₹5,17,723/- is payable to the petitioner as per their books of account and had even issued the C-form under the provisions of Sales Tax Act having distinctive No.1330326 covering all the invoices raised for the supplies made by the petitioner. It is an admitted fact that by 21.01.2013 and 21.03.2013 all the goods were supplied and installed as per the specifications in the two purchase orders issued by the respondent and the respondent had rather appreciated the effort of the petitioner. On 14.02.2014 the petitioner even visited the factory of the respondent and had replaced issue pellet with steel deck pellet even though it was beyond the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent admitted its outstanding balance due to the petitioner to be ₹5,17,723/-. Numerous e-mails were then sent (Annexure N colly) which were never replied and lastly the statutory notice dated 28.03.2015 was sent and in response thereof the respondent sent an e-mail dated 13.04.2015 (Annexure Z) wherein though it did not deny the receipt of the goods; its installation/ commissioning and/or the outstanding but rather stated that promoters are out of the country and shall be returning in end April, 2015 and he will be in touch after discussing the matter with promoters . This e-mail is sent by GM (Operations) of the respondent. Thus, no objection qua quality of goods or its installation was raised even after receipt of statutory not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how that only an apprehension was raised about the quality of plastic after a year of installation/commissioning but that too was attended to. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent primarily relies upon Section 42 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 to claim its right to inspect the goods in reasonable time . However in Lohmann Rausher Gmbh v . Medisphere Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 117(2004) DLT 95 the court observed : 41 . Buyer's right of examining the goods .- ( 1 ) Where goods are delivered to the buyer which he has not previously examined, he is not deemed to have accepted them unless and until he has had a reasonable opportunity of examining them for the purpose of ascertaining whether they are in conformit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 01.2013 and on 21.03.2013 and where the respondent admitted its liability on 9.12.2013 (Annexure N) but raised only an apprehension after a year of installation which was also attended to, though beyond the scope of the contract and where the respondent rather appreciated the work of the petitioner then its plea per Section 41 that it could not inspect the goods, within a reasonable period of its installation, makes no sense. The facts reveal the respondent is raising this frivolous issue after a year of receiving demand letters and is trying to wriggle out of its liability thus have neglected to pay without any cogent, substantial or genuine ground. 8. In IBA Health ( I ) Pvt . Ltd vs . Info - Drive Systems Sdn . Bhd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
