9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1869X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oresaid sleepers to Indian Railways. c) Defendant approached the plaintiff at its registered office at Kolkata within the jurisdiction of this Court for supply of diverse quantities of SGCI Inserts, a material used for manufacturing of railway track items. The defendant represented that it had entered into an agreement dated 6th December, 2013 with the Engineer/TPS, Northern Railway for manufacturing and supply of pre-stressed mono block concrete sleeper (pre-tension type) for broad gauge (1673 mm.) to Drg No. T-2496 to suit 60 kg. UIC rail as per RDSO design and IRS specification No. T-39-85 (Third Revision May, 1996) (hereinafter referred to as the stores). d) Pursuant to a negotiation that followed, at the office of the plaintiff, it agreed to supply and the defendant agreed to accept, SGCI Inserts of agreed size and specifications. It was further agreed that the supply would be effected on the basis of specific orders to be placed by the defendant upon the same being pre-inspected by RITES and that payment, therefore, would be released by the defendant as per invoice raised by the plaintiff immediately after 30 days from the date of dispatch of materials. e) Defendant pla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the defendant outside the aforesaid jurisdiction, the defendant as debtor became obliged to sue their creditor, that is, the plaintiff at their registered office at 1/1, Camac Street, 3rd Floor, Kolkata - 700016, which falls within the jurisdiction of this Court. However, the orders for supply were made and received by the plaintiff at its said office within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. o) It is also evident that part-payments were made and/or routed through the plaintiff's banker within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. Accordingly, the plaintiff, in its plaint, has stated that part of the cause of action in the suit arose within the jurisdiction of this Court, however, part thereof arose outside the aforesaid jurisdiction. p) While presenting the plaint this Court granted leave to the plaintiff under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. 2. Before going to the real dispute in question I have checked whether the suit is maintainable or not. Material disclosed in the plaint shows that the suit is well maintainable in law as the plaintiff's claim for the dues against the defendant has not yet been barred. Cause of action for the suit arose partly wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the plaint case plaintiff has examined one Arun Agarwal, who is Associated with the plaintiff, Surya Alloy Industries Limited, since August, 2015 as its Senior Executive and he knew the defendant. In the box the plaintiff has proved the original purchase orders dated 9th November, 2015, 8th February, 2016 and 17th June, 2016 being Exhibit 'A' (collectively). Witness has also identified and proved three several documents dated 9th November, 2015, 12th November, 2015 and 30th November, 2015. The first being a letter addressed to RITES limited mentioning the purchase order details and calculation of inspection charges; the second letter being the inspection call letter giving complete purchase order details; the third being the money receipt issued by RITES limited. The documents have been marked Exhibit 'B' (collectively). The witness also identified the inspection certificate issued by the RITES which certificate has been issued by RITES after inspection of goods and the Engineer being fully satisfied about the quality of the same. He identified the signature appearing on the said document which is marked Exhibit 'C'. The witness further identified several ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raised by the defendant. The witness confirmed in the box that plaintiff was required to supply under four several purchase orders, 1,90,000 number of SGCI Inserts and out of which record shows that 1,23,000 numbers were supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant and identifying the documents marked Exhibit 'F' the plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff supplied 1,23,710 number of Inserts to the defendant. The witness deposed that because the defendant was unable to pay the agreed amount, the plaintiff discontinued to supply further materials of SGCI Inserts. However, according to the witness, part-payment has been made to the extent of Rs. 34,00,000/- and for the balance amount the plaintiff issued demand notices on 19th October, 2016 and 2nd December, 2016 written by the plaintiff's Advocate, Mr. Subho Chand Jana. Letters were sent on the instruction of the plaintiff demanding dues on their behalf from the defendant. The letters were sent under registered cover with acknowledgment due but the defendant never responded to the said letter. On perusal of the demand letter and the postal receipts being Exhibit 'G' (collectively), it is seen that the letters were se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
