9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (7) TMI 551X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing and marketing of BOPP films, etc. It is the case of the petitioner that the company has been doing business with the respondent-company and it supplied to the respondent various quantities of BOPP films pursuant to its orders. The details of the supplies made under various invoices are as under: Sl. No. Invoice No. Date Amount due Rs. P. 1. 1/10620 4-2-1992 1,51,115.77 2. 1/10621 4-2-1992 1,09,346.69 3. 1/10662 13-2-1992 1,43,775.49 4. 1/10744 20-3-1992 2,65,943.00 5. 1/10773 26-3-1992 1,41,386.08 6. 1/20006 15-04-1992 1,29,529.17 7. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supplied by the petitioner-company in the month of December, 1991/January, 1992, was not found to be of gradation which had been agreed to between the parties. The petitioner-company was asked to replace the material, but it failed to do so. It has also been submitted that the respondent-company pointed out the discrepancy of weight and the rate which had been charged in respect of bill dated September 23, 1991, but no credit note for the difference in the bill was sent. In regard to dishonouring of the cheques by the bank, it has been submitted by the respondent that the petitioner-company had obtained post-dated cheques for the material to be supplied to the respondent-company and those cheques could not have been sent for encashment as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s previous to the issuance of bill, annexure P-1. Similarly, annexure R-3, refers to letter dated January 8, 1992, which in turn refers to earlier bills. Similar is the position in regard to letters, annexures R-4 to R-6. It is pertinent to mention here that in letter dated June 14, 1992 (annexure R-7), the respondent-company itself has admitted that goods weighing 620.6 Kgs. were rejected, and credit of the defective goods was given to the respondent-company. Similarly, in letter dated July 24, 1992, the petitioner-company offered to take back all the unused film but the respondent-company had not agreed to the said offer. The respondent-company had also been informed by this letter that the petitioner-company would not accept any rejectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9.13 were given on January 18, 1992, but the same were dishonoured and therefore, this amount was reversed on January 31, 1992. Subsequently, payment of Rs. 1 lakh made on February 28, 1992, through cheque had to be reversed for non-encashment of the cheques. The statement of account further shows that the petitioner-company had given a credit note of Rs. 25,101.13 to the respondent regarding damage to goods and a special discount was given for Rs. 1,80,433.62 on March 31, 1992, as according to the petitioner-company the prices had dropped in the market. Subsequent payments were made on May 1, 1992, June 1, 1992, June 4, 1992, July 2, 1992, and September 10, 1992, totalling Rs. 3 lakhs. Thereafter, the goods were sent on September 30, 1992 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
