IN THE HIGH COURT OF IQRRNATAKA AT BANGALOE'E:.§'E.
DATED THIS THE) 30'!" DAY OF NovEMBER.~~~2Q::Q__E- "
PRESENT
THE HQNBLE MR. JUSTICE; AJfi"J N.1AL_u _
AND.
THE HONBLE MRS. JUs"'I"'iE4(:T}::.B.V.N'AQAR'A'rR;N}i'
R.F.A". ~ NO. 1.v6"s3/I2o O?_.
BETWEEN: '
SRI NARASIMHA "
PROPR1E'1'Q-R",
M/s.BHUM1ia:VA*wQV0 ' I1"1DLisf1'R'IEs;;
NIDDOIJY;
KARKALA 'I1ALUE:.1D;K.D1%sTV, _ _-- APPELLANT
{BY EMT.sAN1jYA'UaRRABHU, ADV., FOR M/S.ACC
ASSTS] E 4
«,1:IiARN:A'£TAj{}XE-S%l.7ATE FOREST
INDUSTR'IEjS. C.O--OPERATION LTD,
PADJL, MN.\I'C;ALORE W 575 007.
- V REP." BY" ITS 'REGIONAL DIRECTOR.
- UNIVERSITY ENGINEERING-
"«.'D.[v1'S_ION,
_ MANGALA GANGOTRI.
" MANGALORE TALUK W 574 199.
-~RER.BY1Ts EXECUTIVE ENGINEER. .. ...RESPONDENTS
{BY SR1 S.B.PAVIN, ADV. F’OR R-1 AND SR1 EVI.I.ARUN’
ADV. FOR R-2}
$>’$>i<5.Wic
furn.it§ure*.for thelpast: several years and has gathered
Ayreputatioily said line. He was supplying such
jpdefenudanta. .'xxThe specific case made out is that the
"..fdeier1«.dant Nol had placed Orders for supply of desks
sofa sets to the 2% defendant. In furtherance of the
same, the plaintiff supplied the same as per the Delivery
, A
THIS R.I%«'.A. IS FILED U /s. 96 OF cpc AGAINS"l_"_._'i"HE
JUDGMENT AND DEGREE mix;/2.2/2006 PAssIi:Io.iy_:'i~1N
o.s.NO.3/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE 1
JUDGE [SR.DN.). MANGALORE, oIsMIssINo«ffr:–is;
FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY. ”
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR I?f.I+:}IRINOAp”‘rHIs
AJIT J.GUNJAL J., DELIvERI<iI:;««.frHE F=OLl,.OW'l:NG.:'-…
Junomefir t "Z'
This appeal is byitlfie suitdis filed for
recovery ofj..I«IIO:1ely…–';'–_V -Judge has dismissed
the suit. ——– M
2:;-._ thevv-.pi'aintiff is that he is doing
business llma'n1ifaetu'f;ing and supplying wooden
to the 2"" defendant through the 18'
Note dated 9/6/1999 and I0/6/I999 respectively. The
said goods were acCe_pted. by the first deferidant. later
several request by the plaintiff.
not pay the amounts due. Hence,
the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,28.212/A
thevalue of the goods supplied to the defendant
'W
_ J M,
they were sent to the second defendant. But however.
the plaintiff received a notice from the first
17/ 6/ 1999 that 15 desks and 15 sofa sets he
supplied by him were not as per
defective and not up to the standard__.
neither the first. defendant
given any valid reasons':'fo_r rejection
of the goods I defendant is
arbitrary 'The plaintiff would
plead accepted without
any objecuonsi llgto receive the value of the
goods _si..1pplied..:as~f)er."-the accounts maintained by the
3. In response to the service of SE,1fI1I’1’l0I1S. the
defendant No.1. entered appearance and denied the case
of the plaintiff in its entirety.
‘l V’ to help the plaintiff in the suit
plea is that the materials supplied
1 were.’ of”‘sd’|oLstandard and not according to the
specifications and therefore, it was rejected by the
defendant. it is their case that they have
ll “repeatedly requested the plaintiff by series of letters
9. commencing from 17/6/1999 to 16/11/1999 to take
4
4. The primary contention of the first defendant is
that there is no contractual relationship interse
the plaintiff and the first defendant. It is 1,
that the defendant has not placed–a1’1y.
with the plaintiff for suppiy of desks
supplied to the second defendant.
would however state has them
15 desks and 15 sofa the second
defendant note mentioned in
the one of the subordinates
of the i.e., Shivanna, Deputy
Manager: v\7lho..:lconni\fe.dl.yvith the plaintiff by misusing
further steps, but it has not been done. They would
4
further plead that the first defendant: under took to
i7
_._the t.r§jfnsactionl”betyyfeei1 plaintiff and defendant No.1
plead that they had placed an order on
‘desi:slllland.16..’2ll sofa sets for the use of the University after
the notice dated 17/6/1999. According to
____”?then1, the first defendant had supplied desks and sofa
llllfsets as per the supply orders. They would also
{J7
supply 62 sets of desks and sofa sets to the
defendant as per the specifications. The V’
said furniture was entrusted to:.i’vI’/»s,pSer;en.all
Chokkabettu, Suratkal W Mangalolfej
the minimum price for the is
their case that M/s.Se*r.ena llsupplied the
entire quantity to the the entire
amount due isgpiaidto gigestion of the
first defendantll:s’a_>ifisiyi.ngithe of the plaintiff does
not arise. V; _ _
5. ‘:,V_The .sec:’.n.d”defen’dan1: has entered appearance
and wou1d”‘-takeup_’a.l.c’on_tention that it is oblivious of
the first defendant for supply of 62
specifically contend that out of the entire supply.
15 desks and 15 sofa were found to the defect:ive
{
,6,
and not as per the specifications and hence. the sarne
was rejected by the second defendant. and
informed defendant No.1 by a letter dated =
They would also contend that; »-me. p V’
thereafter replaced those 15
new ones of good quality sarne. ‘v.I_er_”e
and the entire amount,’ has””‘h’e.€jftd”p_aidflto’~ the first
defendant in full and fined
6. fIfh€:._1ea5r;ned on the basis of the
pleadings. has Vfra med _ “following issues:–
1}””Whether’uV proves that the first
defendant placed order for supply of
A deskstdand ‘sofa sets to the platnttff’?
the 13′ defendant proves that the
.4’A,”_’znaete’rtals supplied by the ptainttff’ is without
A’ requisition?
H Whether the 15′ defendant proves that the
materials were of substandard and not
according to the specifications’?
4} Whether the 2″ defendant’ proves that the
suit is bad for nttsjotttder of party?
5} V!/hether the plaintiff’ is entitled to the suit
relief as prayedjor?
6} What decree or order?
fie
‘7
t
7. During the course of trial, the plaintiff exarni__ned
himself as P.W.l and Exs.P.1 to R11 are ma3″kedZn’_Fhe.,A’
first. defendant was examined as D.W.1 and ”
13.6 were marked. The lear11e:d””trial it
regard to the evidence let in both
was of the View that. the plaintiff”has failed’
the first defendant has ‘”p1,aCed”an’ for l5″deslks and
15 sofa sets the remaining
issues, it flound:l’that~..’f’thle ,ff1?st_r–,p:clefendarit. has proved
that th;3″‘:fi’e:t;e{{i;t1s,l :f;g;1′;pfp11§d plaintiff are without
any requisition.’ _ l
8. appeal, Ms.Sandhya, learned
«’V.,_eoun’sE;el:__appearihg…__fOr the appellant submitted by
l.W,pla.le’ing on Ex.P.3 that the Office Manager
actnigl on of the Regional Manager had placed
a.//..,,p__f’.orders supply of 15 desks and 15 sofa sets both
at Rs.3,03,900/–. She would submit that
ll”—-.ll:llpu§rsuant to the delivery note a_t EXs.P.4 and 5, the
goods were supplied to the first defendant. who in turn
supplied it to the second defendant. Thus, she would
submit that the material on record would clearly
3″
24
fl.»
J
‘ transactiondn of supply of furniture’s is
..v..requvire.dv to do its-vtrarisactions under the Transparency
submits that in the absence of the
‘.questionll’ofldefendant No.1 issuing a work order in
of the plaintiff would not arise. He further
.._l”lSubrnits that the documents which are relied on by the
, Dplaintiff before the Courts below are concocted in as
.g__
disclose that pursuant to the order of conirnunication at
Ex.P.3. the goods have been supplied. Thus’;
plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount dueg: l l
9. Mr.Pavin, learned counsel.’ a’.ppea1*i.ngl’
defendant No.1 submits entire
material, both oral would
clearly indicate that theirflepiutvl ‘Slhivanna had
no authority of furniture.
He subrnitsv being a Government
of Karnataka which is involved in the
plaintiff s A liaarlticipation in the tender process, the
much as there were serious allegations against the
manager and disciplinary proceedings were initiated
and he has been ultimately disniissed froin He W;
defeotzlye and theyhaye been suitably replaced. Hence,
l.7_:lIl !’V[l13vClv]fVC’tJ.i11§L’aI1C€S. the question of they being parties
I lithe parties and having perused the documents
ll”-.___”‘.”p1aVced on record, the point that arises for our
_ll;’»consideraiiion_ is whether the learned trial Judge was
too,
has placed a copy of the article of charges leveled
against the said delinquent official Vide Ex. ‘D–6’.
10. lVlr.Arun_. learned counsel
second defendant submits
nothing to do with the transaction
plaintiff and the first no privity of
contract. He further defendant
had placed for supply of
62 desks entire lot was sent at
different’ “submits that out of the
entire lot, sofa sets were found to be
to ltheliproce-edirigs does can arise.
ll’i}..l7I.~iailring heard the learned counsel appearing
justified in dismissing the plaintiff suit’?
I-Vi’g.l.d’efe’n’d:antf a communication to the first
that the goods supplied are
_subA–s«tan,dard7′ and the plaintiff is required to take
“step. However, the plaintiff has failed to do so.
also depose that the contractual obligation of
if .:l_4:”s’u’pplying the goods i.e., 62 sets of desks and sofa sets
as well as the delivery having been satisfactorily
__ 11
agreement or the contract was interse between___the
plaintiff and the first defendant. Indeed, this
to the oral evidence on behalf of the defendant} V’
the Regional Manager of the first
as D.W.l and in the examination;’i’n§chiei},:A.Athe
defendant would depose that–v:.c:lg:there’his.
obligation whatsoeverVbetWeen”th:ern”‘iand the plaintiff.
D.W.1 would is with the
connivance .lfnlé1:iv1bers of the office by
name sofa sets have been
suppliedvhto’-the’ under the alleged
delivery, rioteu.” ._:lHeV.vwoiild’l:also depose that the second
completed and have been supplied by M/s.Serena
Timbers of Surathkal and the account with them has fl
..v..undaté-3d and th’e._sa_id communication is signed by
“–__Shviyanr1-a “ag-a.i_nst whom. certain disciplinary
in his dismissal. Two more documents,
and P5 are the delivery note. A perusal of the
l””i_.._lfsan%1e would indicate that the first lot furniture was
. Dsent under Ex.P.4, where 11 sets of teak wood desks
already been settled. In the cross~examination, \_z’xe_V
that nothing is elicited which is
interest of the first defendant. I_)..W_._ .,..
that there are no documents to
the tenders before issuing thel-wtark
13. This take t.o thell…doc’un1enta1’y. eyidence
produced by the plainltilff defendant.
Indeed the the on which,
strong re1_iyance._i’s to show that the
work order ‘lay the first defendant.
Indeed, a would disclose that it is
proceeidingsfare initiated and we are informed, it has
and 5 sets of sofa sets were sent on 10/6/1999 and
under Ex.P.5_. 4» sets of teak wood desks and 10 sets of
sofa sets were sc1’1t: on 9 / (65 / .1999.
9 _ of the defendant Ex.D.3 is a
9 _defen’d..ar1tf M / s.Serena Timbers, Surathkal. A
ddofththe said work order would indicate that the
required to be supplied in two consignments
9 sets each and the first consignment should reach
on 20/2/1999 a11d the second consigr1mer1.t should be
15. The other documents which are
availabie by the plaintiff are the 9′
by defendant No.1 indicating that
take back all the defective goods
them. The first of the letter
thereafter, series of letters have’ ‘E’:xs.P.8
and 13.9, requesting the goods.
Indeed, the so. Ex.P.11 is
a letter dated by the second
defendant’ fle’f’§hdan’tVVVindicating that the 15
desks and “of”sub–standard and are not
in conf_ormity’uwi_th’ the orders which are placed.
2/ 2/ 1999 placed by the first
delivered on or before 15/3/1999. Indeed, in the case
2
//f
on hand, we notice that the g()()cls were accepted on ?%
l’fl.t”1′;eVfirsttitlefendantlhad not placed any order with the
to the various documents and the oral evidence
* adr.’h,1ced”du1*ing the course of trial.
9 ~«l..:”fi1rniture, which is lying in the first defendants office.
Indeed we notice that by series of correspondence, the
‘1 R
4.’/
9/6/1999 and 10/8/I999 as per Ex P4 and P5, which
run contrary to the work order placed by
defendant with M/s.Serena Timbers of Suratl’iliia’]:.’. V’
takes us to the documents produced by
as Ex.D.6. No doubt, a
indicate that the particular vve
are concerned is not tik.-“a1~r:’i§<:1es of
charges. Nevertheless, from 1993
onwards, the in identical
activities H of » A lncolrporation on various
occasions this would be a reflection
on the –condu4ct._:of the rnanager. We are of the View that
of the goods more so, having regard
17. This takes us as to what happens to the
first defendant had requested the plaintiff take delivery
/
E
of the goods which are lying in their office for over a Q
V’ « ‘
period of atleast ten years and the piaintiff
chosen take back the furniture.
18. Indeed, we permit
the goods which are Iying»f’wf’th
office. Having said so, we ftewrfvithatiftlaere is
no merit in the ‘appeal stands
dismissed. . V
19. As the plaintiff to
retrieve the”‘geoetgi7f,__Vwf£’:ei1:f:”fife with the first
defendant. NVo«oo’sts.’
Sd/3
3115.93
3,3/2.
JUDGE