Friends Automobiles vs Neptune Equipment Pvt. Ltd.

Valmiki J Mehta, J.—This case is on the Regular Board of this Court since 3.1.2011. This case is effective item No. 7 on the Regular Board of this Court today. No one appears for the parties although it is 12.45 pm. I have therefore perused the record and am proceeding to dispose of the matter.

The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal is to the impugned judgment and decree dated 31.1.2001 whereby the suit of the Respondent/plaintiff for recovery was decreed. The suit for recovery was decreed for price of two machines supplied to the Appellant i.e. one Neptune Diesel Smoke Meter and one Neptune Exhaust Gas Analyser.

The facts of the case are that with respect to the two machines supplied to the Appellant, the Respondent/plaintiff raised bills numbered 92361 and 92362, dated 28.7.97, for Rs. 1,65,000/- and Rs. 1,22,100/- respectively. The Appellant made payment of only Rs. 25,000/-, and the balance amount was given by post dated cheques which were dishonoured on presentation, resulting in filing of the suit.

Three defences were raised by the Appellant in the Trial Court. First was that the Respondent had to return the cheque and receive the cash in exchange thereof. The second defence was that the machinery supplied was defective and the third defence was that the Courts at Ambala had territorial jurisdiction and not the courts in Delhi.

So far as the main issue of the machinery being allegedly defective is concerned, the Trial court has held that no evidence was adduced by the Defendant to prove that the machinery was defective and therefore it cannot be held that the machinery was defective. So far as the territorial jurisdiction aspect is concerned, the Trial court has held that the goods were supplied to Defendant at and from Delhi i.e. the performance of the contract was to take place in Delhi and hence Delhi rightly had territorial jurisdiction. In any case, I do not find that any prejudice was caused to the Appellant on account of trial of the suit in Delhi and therefore there cannot be any technical objection to the impugned decree considering the fact that more than 11 years have passed by since the commencement of litigation. The argument of return of cheques against cash was immaterial as admittedly the price remained unpaid till the suit was filed.

In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and decree which calls for interference. The appeal is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.