Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

J.I.HARKIN CRAFTS versus PURANMAL MODI & ORS.

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


J.I.HARKIN CRAFTS v PURANMAL MODI & ORS. - CFA Case No. 57 of 1988 [2006] RD-RJ 1993 (19 September 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR.

--------

JUDGMENT

M/s. J.I.Harkin Crafts vs. Puranmal Modi & Anr.

-o0o-

S.B. Civil First Appeal No.57/1988 under Section 96 read with Order 41 rule 1 C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 21.01.1988 passed by Shri Dev

Chand Meena RHJS, Additional District

Judge No.4, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil

Suit No.45/84 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff respondents.

Date of Judgment :::::: September 19, 2006

PRESENT

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KHEM CHAND SHARMA

Mr.J.P.Goyal )

Mr.Amit Sharma ) for appellant.

Mr.D.K.Soral for the respondents.

BY THE COURT (ORAL):-

The facts in brief giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff respondents filed a suit against the defendant appellant for recovery of a sum of Rs.30,757/- alleging therein that the defendant used to take goods on credit and used to make the payment in different modes. The account of the amount was to be prepared at the end of each year and whatever amount found due used to be carried forward in the account of the defendant for the next year and interest @ 1% per month was to be charged. In paras 4 and 5 of the plaint, the plaintiffs mentioned the details of the goods supplied to the defendant. As per the case of the plaintiffs, in the year 1981-82 Rs.13,932/- were due towards defendant as they supplied goods to the extent of

Rs.35,248/- out of which they received Rs.21,315.50 paisa.

The plaintiffs came with the case that at the end of close of year 1983 i.e. on 31st March, 1983 an amount of

Rs.20,737/- was due against the defendant which includes

Rs.13,932/-. In such circumstances the plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of Rs.30,757/- (Rs.20,737/- as principal sum and Rs.10,020/- interest).

In the written statement, the defendant has admitted the transaction between the parties but came with this case that no rate of interest was settled between the parties.

The defendant also admitted the fact that the accounts sent by the plaintiffs were correct. However, the defendant objected demand of Rs.5,000/-. In the alternative, the defendant submitted that if any amount found due to him, he is ready to pay the same in installments.

Learned trial court after framing issues, proceeded to record evidence of the parties. After recording evidence of the parties and hearing both the side, the learned trial court vide judgment dated 21st Jaunuary, 1988 decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for Rs.30,757.50 with interest of 12% from the date of judgment till realisation.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the impugned judgment on two ground. The first ground is that the learned trial court has committed error in awarding interest @ 12% per annum on the due amount as no rate of interest was settled between the parties. The second ground of challenge is that the court at Jaipur had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit as no cause of action had arisen at Jaipur. As per learned counsel for the appellant all the transactions between the parties were at

Delhi, the goods were supplied at Delhi and payment was also made at Delhi. Thus, the court at Jaipur had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit.

Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff appellants on the other hand supporting the findings of the learned trial court has contended that in the bills given to the defendant appellant there is clear mention regarding charging of 21% interest if the payment is not made within seven days. Counsel has contended that the witnesses of the plaintiffs have categorically deposed that interest @ 12% per annum was settled between the parties. Placing reliance on Section 61 (2)(a) of the Sale of Goods Act,1930, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants contended that even if it is taken that there was no specific contract between the parties regarding payment of interest in view of the provisions of Section 61(2)(a) of the Sale of Goods Act, the court may award interest at such a rate as it thinks fit.

Regarding jurisdiction of court at Jaipur, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants contended that the witnesses of the plaintiffs have categorically denied the suggestion that the goods were supplied at Delhi. The witnesses have deposed that the defendants used to come to

Jaipur and used to took the goods either by themselves or through truck. Counsel also contended that the payments were made at Jaipur. Therefore, the cause of action has arisen at Jaipur and court at Jaipur had jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. On this strength, learned counsel for the plaintiff respondents submitted that no interference is required to be called for in the impugned judgment and decree and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the material and evidence available on record as well as the impugned judgment.

Sofar as point regarding awarding of interest @ 12% per annum is concerned, there is clear mention of charging 21% interest per annum in the bills in the event of non- payment of the bill amount. However, the learned trial court on evaluating the evidence of the plaintiffs has come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have not been able to prove that there has been any contract between the parties regarding payment of interest on the due amount but the learned trial court exercising the discretion vested in it by virtue of provisions of Section 61(2)(a) of the above said Act, has granted interest @ 12% per annum, which cannot in any manner be said to excessive or illegal.

Sofar as the second point raised by learned counsel for the appellant regarding jurisdiction of the court at

Jaipur to entertain and try the suit is concerned, suffice it to say that the learned trial court has committed no error in deciding this point. PW.3 Om Prakash Modi in his statement has stated that Jasvinder Singh and his mother used to come to Jaipur for purchasing the cloth and the payment used to be made at Jaipur. He denied the suggestion that the plaintiffs used to go to Delhi with cloth. The witness further deposed that the defendants used to come with draft or cheque at Jaipur. Ex.P.4 is an admitted document which was sent by the defendant at Jaipur. This document is in connection of accounts between the parties.

Ex.3 is the letter through which the demand drafts were sent to the plaintiffs. As per the evidence of the plaintiffs, the payment of the drafts sent through Ex.3 was made at Jaipur. In addition to it, the disputed cheque of

Rs.5000/- was also payable at Jaipur. Thus, it is clear that part cause of action had also arisen at Jaipur and, therefore, court at Jaipur had jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. In this view of the matter, I do not find any error in the finding recorded by the learned trial court on the issue regarding jurisdiction of court at

Jaipur.

No other point was raised.

For the discussions above, the first appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with no orders as to cost.

(K.C.Sharma),J.

Bairwa


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.