9911796707
TMI Blog1963 (11) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tches manufactured at the Government Match Works at Perambur. The prices at which the goods were supplied by the match factory to the defendant were fixed and the defendant was free to put his own price on the goods when sold by him. Thus though the defendant was described as selling agent the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant was not that of principal and agent, and the defendant was really a purchaser of the goods from the plaintiff. 2. The contract provided for payment of the price to the plaintiff by the defendant within 15 days of the delivery of the goods. The defendant was not regular in the payments but by the end of December 1957, he cleared off the arrears leaving only a sum of Rs. 706-59 which was in dispute, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... awing his attention to this addition and asking him to embody it in the agreement and send it. The agreement already signed by the defendant was sent to him for this purpose. The defendant states that he did not agree to this new clause and sent back the agreement. But on behalf of the plaintiff it is stated that the agreement was not received back. Anyhow, goods were supplied till July 1958 to the defendant. The defendant was in arrears to a considerable extent but goods were supplied to him on credit till July 1958. At that stage, however, since he was in arrears for an amount over Rs. 20,000 the Director of Industries decided not to supply goods to him any further on credit. In August and September 1958, the defendant purchased goods by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relief's is the plaintiff entitled? 5. When the documents were marked today, the plaintiff produced the acknowledgment dated 20-11-1957 signed by the defendant for receipt of the goods supplied to him on that date, Ex. P-18. In view of this Sri E. R. Krishnan, learned counsel for the defendant admitted receipt of the consignment In question. Hence issue 4 is found in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. 6. Regarding interest, to sustain the claim of the plaintiff, it is sufficient to refer to Section 61(2) of the Sale of Goods Act, which is as follows: In the absence of a contract to the contrary, the Court may award interest at such rate as it thinks fit on the amount of the price - (a) to the seller in a suit by him for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thereof cannot be heard to complain that the plaintiff committed breach in withholding supply. The plaintiff, the seller, is not bound to go on supplying goods without having payment. That will not be business. On this ground also the counter claim must fail. 8. Accordingly, on issues 1, 6 and 7, I find that the plaintiff will be entitled to the suit amount, calculating interest as indicated in this judgment and under issue 5 he will be bound to give credit for Rs. 500, the initial deposit, in final adjustment. The plaintiff will have the costs on the amount decreed after lessening it by the sum of Rs. 500. The counter claim is dismissed, without costs. The defendant is given four months time for payment. But the amount decreed will carry i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
