9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 900X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... towards the price of the Cold Rolled Stainless Steel Coils sold, supplied and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant together with ₹ 48,33,765/- towards interest @ 12% per annum from the due date of payment of each of the aforesaid invoices and till the date of institution of this suit. It is further the case of the plaintiff that a meeting was held by the parties on 02.06.2009 with the following agenda: AGENDA: Regarding Old outstanding of ₹ 1,49,21,015.00 as per IUP Jindal account statement and Approximately ₹ 1,29,00,000.00 as per M/s Conee Chains Account statement and restart future Business on mutually agreed terms conditions. and in the Minutes drawn of the said meeting and signed by the representatives of the parties, it was agreed as under: DISCUSSIONS CONCLUSION: Mr. Manish Gandhi agreed to reconcile the IUP Jindal A/C statement with their books of accounts. The old pending payment of ₹ 1,49,29,015.00 bearing invoice value as follows: Inv. No. Inv. Date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e defendant at Tamil Nadu and the parties agreed that the defendant would place orders at the plaintiff‟s Chennai office; all payments were made by the defendant by Letters of credit payable at Haryana; all materials were dispatched by the plaintiff from Haryana and received by the defendant at Tamil Nadu; (iii) the suit is barred by time, having been filed beyond three years from the date of the invoices; (iv) there is no acknowledgment by the defendant of the amount claimed by the plaintiff; (v) no amount reflected in the books of account of the defendant can be said to be due when disputes have been raised with regard to the materials relating to invoices reflected in the accounts. All such amounts contained in the books of account are subject to such disputes. ; (vi) that the plaintiff sent short supply of many sizes ordered and excess of others - though the plaintiff was informed of the same but the defendant never received the shortage quantity and the size supplied in excess are still available with the defendant as dead inventory; the representative of the plaintiff at Chennai Sh. Hanumantha Rao had inspected the defective goods at the defendant‟s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... table Organisation 2005 Law Suit (Delhi) 913. 6. The senior counsel for the plaintiff, on the aspect of territorial jurisdiction has referred to various judgments which will be discussed hereinbelow and has with respect to the letter dated 28.06.2007 contended that neither any proof of dispatch or delivery thereof has been filed nor the defendant at any time had returned any goods; alternatively it is contended that the impact of the said letter is at best of ₹ 3,25,898.90 only and from the factum that except for the said letter, the defendant has not been able to produce the letter qua any other supplies it is obvious that the pleas qua the other supplies are without any basis. 7. I have weighed the rival contentions aforesaid. I will take up the aspect of territorial jurisdiction first. 8. The plaintiff has invoked the territorial jurisdiction of this Court by pleading in para 13 of the plaint that discussions and negotiations between the parties took place at Delhi; agreement was concluded at Delhi; discussions about delivery of goods took place at Delhi; payment was agreed to be made at Delhi; the payment was tendered at New Delhi; the Letters of Credit were enca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. (viii). Anchal Vs. Anand Prakash 53 (1994) DLT 348, giving weightage to the entries in the books of accounts of the defendant at the stage of grant of leave to defend. 10. I am satisfied that the objection of the defendant in the leave to defend application as to the territorial jurisdiction is dilatory and vexatious. The registered office of the plaintiff being at Delhi and the plaintiff having got issued a legal notice prior to the institution of the suit calling upon the defendant to pay the monies due at Delhi, the Courts at Delhi also would have jurisdiction on the principle of debtor must seek creditor‟ and it cannot be said that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 11. As far as the only other plea of the defendant on the basis of the letter dated 28.06.2007 is concerned, the same is falsified from the Minutes of the meeting held on 02.06.2009. Though the agenda for the said meeting was reconciliation of the outstanding against the defendant of ₹ 1,49,21,015/- claimed by the plaintiff and the outstanding admitted of approximately ₹ 1,29,00,000/- by the defendant‟ but in the discussions held and conclusions dr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
