2006 (3) TMI 805 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the suit.
2. Requirement of Leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent.
3. Bar by Law of Limitation.
4. Breach of contract by defendants regarding delivery instructions.
5. Breach of contract by plaintiffs.
6. Non-payment for goods supplied.
7. Supply and delivery of goods worth Rs. 67,009/-.
8. Entitlement of defendants to deduct Rs. 1,32,892.50 as liquidated damages.
9. Plaintiffs' entitlement to recover Rs. 67,009/- with interest.
10. Reliefs entitled to plaintiffs.
11. Decree and order.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Suit:
The court addressed whether the suit was misconceived and not maintainable. The issue was answered in the negative, indicating the suit was maintainable.

2. Requirement of Leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent:
This issue was not pressed by either party, so no determination was made.

3. Bar by Law of Limitation:
Similarly, this issue was not pressed by either party and was not determined.

4. Breach of Contract by Defendants:
The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants breached the contract by not issuing proper delivery instructions. The court found in favor of the plaintiffs to the extent that the defendants did not make full payment for the goods after adjusting for delays in delivery.

5. Breach of Contract by Plaintiffs:
The defendants alleged that the plaintiffs breached the contract by failing to deliver goods on time. The court agreed, finding that the plaintiffs did indeed delay delivery, justifying the defendants' claim for liquidated damages.

6. Non-payment for Goods Supplied:
The court found that the defendants did not remit the full purchase price for the goods supplied by the plaintiffs, but this was due to justified deductions for delayed delivery.

7. Supply and Delivery of Goods Worth Rs. 67,009/-:
The plaintiffs needed to prove they supplied goods worth Rs. 67,009/-. The court found that the plaintiffs did supply and deliver the contracted goods, but the defendants were entitled to deduct liquidated damages for delays.

8. Entitlement to Deduct Rs. 1,32,892.50 as Liquidated Damages:
The court examined whether the defendants were entitled to deduct this amount as liquidated damages. The court found that the defendants were justified in deducting Rs. 88,807.45 for delays in delivery but rejected claims for non-delivery of samples and other penalties not substantiated by evidence.

9. Plaintiffs' Entitlement to Recover Rs. 67,009/- with Interest:
The plaintiffs were entitled to recover the balance amount after deducting justified liquidated damages. The court decreed the plaintiffs were entitled to Rs. 1,60,102.55 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the suit until payment.

10. Reliefs Entitled to Plaintiffs:
The plaintiffs were entitled to the balance amount after deductions for liquidated damages, along with interest.

11. Decree and Order:
The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiffs for Rs. 1,60,102.55 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the suit until payment. No order as to costs was made.