Bombay High Court Allows Recovery Suit for Price Paid for Undelivered Vacuum Drier — Defendant Failed to Deliver Goods Despite Receiving Advance Payments. The court held that the defendants were liable to refund the advance amount of Rs.2,64,590/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the suit till payment under the contract for sale of goods.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 129
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The plaintiffs, M/s. Boolani Engineering Corporation, a registered partnership firm, filed a summary suit against the defendants, M/s. Milind Engg. Works Pvt. Ltd., a private limited company, for recovery of Rs.3,06,910/- with further interest at 6% per annum on Rs.2,64,590/- from the defendants till payment or realisation. The dispute arose out of a contract for the supply of a Double Cone Rotary Vacuum Drier. In December 1984, the defendants approached the plaintiffs and offered to supply the vacuum drier for a total consideration of Rs.4,00,000/-, with delivery within 4 to 6 weeks. The plaintiffs accepted the offer and paid various amounts totalling Rs.2,64,590/- as advance payments. However, the defendants failed to deliver the vacuum drier despite repeated requests and reminders. The plaintiffs therefore filed the suit for recovery of the advance amount paid. The defendants did not appear in the suit and were placed ex parte. The court examined the plaint and the documents on record, including the correspondence between the parties, and found that the plaintiffs had made out a case for recovery of the advance payments. The court held that the defendants were liable to refund the sum of Rs.2,64,590/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the suit till payment. The court also noted that the plaintiffs had claimed a total of Rs.3,06,910/- which included interest, but the principal amount was Rs.2,64,590/-. Accordingly, the court passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs for Rs.2,64,590/- with further interest at 6% per annum from the date of the suit till payment.

Headnote

A) Contract Law - Sale of Goods - Breach of Contract - Recovery of Advance Payment - The plaintiffs paid Rs.2,64,590/- as advance for a vacuum drier to be supplied by the defendants, but the defendants failed to deliver the goods despite repeated requests. The court held that the defendants were liable to refund the advance amount with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the suit till payment. (Paras 1-10)

B) Civil Procedure - Summary Suit - Order XXXVII CPC - Decree on Admission - The suit was filed as a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Since the defendants did not appear or file a defence, the court passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs for the principal amount of Rs.2,64,590/- with further interest at 6% per annum from the date of the suit till payment. (Paras 1-10)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the advance payments made to the defendants for the supply of a vacuum drier which was never delivered, along with interest.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs for the sum of Rs.2,64,590/- with further interest at 6% per annum from the date of the suit till payment.

Law Points

  • Contract for sale of goods
  • breach of contract
  • recovery of advance payment
  • interest on principal sum
  • Order XXXVII CPC
  • summary suit
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2010 LawText (BOM) (01) 263

Summary Suit No. 1254 of 1988

2010-01-06

A.S. Oka, J.

Ms K.C. Nichani for the plaintiffs

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil suit for recovery of money paid as advance for supply of goods which were never delivered.

Remedy Sought

Plaintiffs sought recovery of Rs.3,06,910/- with further interest at 6% per annum on Rs.2,64,590/- from the defendants till payment or realisation.

Filing Reason

Defendants failed to deliver the vacuum drier despite receiving advance payments from the plaintiffs.

Issues

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the advance payments made to the defendants for the supply of a vacuum drier which was never delivered, along with interest.

Submissions/Arguments

Plaintiffs submitted that they paid Rs.2,64,590/- as advance for the vacuum drier, but the defendants failed to deliver the goods despite repeated requests and reminders.

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants, having received advance payments for the supply of goods, were liable to refund the amount when they failed to deliver the goods. The plaintiffs were entitled to recover the principal amount with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the suit till payment.

Judgment Excerpts

The plaintiffs have filed the present suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,06,910/- with further interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the sum of Rs.2,64,590/- from the defendants till payment or realisation. The defendants offered to supply the said vacuum drier for total consideration of Rs.4,00,000/-. The defendants offered to deliver the vacuum drier to the plaintiffs within a period of 4 to 6 weeks. The plaintiffs accepted the said offer. According to the case of the plaintiffs, they paid various amounts to the defendants aggregating to Rs.2,64,590/-. The defendants failed to deliver the vacuum drier to the plaintiffs.

Procedural History

The suit was filed as a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The defendants did not appear and were placed ex parte. The court reserved judgment on December 17, 2009, and pronounced it on January 6, 2010.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order XXXVII
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismissed Appeal Against High Court Order Refusing Transfer of Investigation in Property Alienation Dispute. Disputed Questions of Fact and Death of Appellant Pending Murder Trial Led Court to Relegate Legal Representatives to Appropria...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Domicile Requirement for Teacher Eligibility Test in Maharashtra. Clause 7 of Schedule 'B' of GR dated 25.02.2019 requiring candidates to have passed SSC/HSC from Maharashtra State Boards is held valid and not violative of A...