The High Court
Case Details
RSA-3053-2024 (O 024 (O&M) 1 [130] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PU AT CHANDIGAR IGARH OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA RSA-3053 Date of Dec 3053-2024 (O&M) of Decision :03.03.2025 M/s Panch Kishanpur District Ha Panchwati Nutrients Village anpur, Saharanpur Road, Roorkee, ict Haridwar, Uttrakhand …Appellant versus M/s SGV F SGV Foils Private Limited, Village Seekri, Te ri, TeshilBallabgarh, District abad Faridabad ….Respondent Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PA PANKAJ JAIN Present: vocate Mr. Rahul Bhargava, Advocate for the appellant. *** PANKAJ J KAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) CM-12529 12529-C-2024 This is an application seekin of 41 seeking condonation of delay of 41 days in filin in filing the present appeal. For the reasons recorded in urt is ed in the application, this Court is satisfied th fied that the appellant has shown su e the wn sufficient cause to condone the delay in fili in filing the appeal. Application is allowed. Delay ppeal Delay of 41 days in filing the appeal oned. is condoned RSA-3053 3053-2024(O&M) [1] [2]
Legal Reasoning
Defendant is in appeal. Plaintiff filed a suit for recove recovery of an amount of Rs.2,72,517/ 2,517/-, the princip rincipal amount along with interest @ est @ Rs.1,40,000/-. RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.04.30 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3053-2024 (O 024 (O&M) 2 [3] As per the plaintiff, plainti plaintiff-Company is manufacturer o turer of Aluminum inum Foil Lids for PS, PP Cups, HD ps, HDPE, Pet Jars and other kinds o kinds of flexible pac ble packaging material. As per the p e plaintiff, material was sold to th d to the defendant dant-Company on credit basis. A sum sum of Rs.2,72,517/- is outstandin standing against the st the defendant-Company in the bo the books of account of the plaintif laintiff- Company. pany. Further interest amount of R t of Rs.1,40,000/- on the said intere interest amount ca nt calculated @ 24% per annum num has become due for the perio period commencin encing from 01.07.2015 till 30.06.201 .06.2017. [4] [5] The suit was contested by the d y the defendant. Supply of the material was n was not denied. However, plea wa lea was raised that d that the material supplied by the pla he plaintiff was defected. Plaintiff wa tiff was informed b med by the defendant vide letter/e-ma mail dated 29.04.2015. They we ey were requested t ested to take back the defective materi material and to pay the damages cost s cost to the defenda efendant. Suit filed by the plaintiff wa iff was put to trial framing followin llowing [6] issues:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is en is entitled to recover Rs.2,72,517/- on only as a principal amount as t as well as Rs. 1,40,000/- as an intere nterest amount w.e.f. 1.7.15 to to 30.6.17 @ of 24% per annum um as prayed for?OPP 2. Whether the suit of the pl e plaintiff has no locus standi to file t file the present suit?OPD 3. Whether the suit of the the plaintiff is not maintainable in t in the present form?OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has has not come to the court with clea clean hands?OPD 5. Whether the suit of the pla e plaintiff is time barred?OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff ha f has no jurisdiction to entertain t in the RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.04.30 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document present suit?OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff is est OPD is estopped to file the present suit?OPD RSA-3053-2024 (O 024 (O&M) 3 8. Whether the suit of the pl e plaintiff is not property valued for t for the PD purpose of court fees?OPD 9. Relief. ” [7] While deciding Issue No.1, Co o.1, Court of the first instance held th eld that the supply upply of the material being not dispu t disputed and no remedy having bee ng been availed by ed by the defendant qua the issue of sue of quality of the material supplie upplied, plaintiff wa tiff was entitled to recover sum of R of Rs.2,72,517/- i.e. the price of th e of the material. C rial. Court further held plaintiff entitle num. entitled to interest @ 6% per annum. [8] The aforesaid findings recor recorded by the Court of the fir he first instance sta nce stands affirmed by the Lower App r Appellate Court. [9] Counsel for the appellant llant while assailing the impugne pugned judgment a ment and decree passed by the Court Courts below submits that the Cour Courts below erre erred in totally ignoring the defen defence raised by the defendant wi with respect to is ct to issue regarding the quality of the of the material supplied by the plaintif laintiff. It has been s been contended that once the defen defendant successfully proved that th that the parties wer es were in communication regarding rding quality of the material supplie upplied, the Courts ourts below ought to have taken the d n the defence of the appellant-defenda fendant in consider nsideration and dismissed the suit filed it filed by the plaintiff. [10] I have heard counsel for the a r the appellant and have carefully gon lly gone through rec gh records of the case. [11] On being asked as to what w hat was the nature of the defect in th t in the material su
Legal Reasoning
rial supplied, counsel for the appellant pellant is totally at sea. He has not bee not been able to poin to point out defect in the material even al even today. So is the pleading raise g raised in the writt e written statement and the evidence a ence adduced by the defendant. Apa . Apart from bald bald statement that the material sup al supplied is defective, defendant ha ant has RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.04.30 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document neither ela er elaborated the defect nor has ta has taken any steps to approach an ach any RSA-3053-2024 (O 024 (O&M) fora qua his his grievance. 4 [12] In view thereof, this Court fin urt finds that the Courts below right rightly decreed the ed the suit filed by the plaintiff for tiff for the principal amount and he held plaintiff en tiff entitled to interest only @ 6% per % per annum. [13] Finding no merits in the prese present appeal, the same is ordered dered to be dismisse smissed. [14] All pending miscellaneous neous application(s), if any, stand stands
Decision
disposed of off. .2025 03.03.2025 ‘R. Sharma' (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.04.30 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document