Case Note & Summary
The appellant/defendant, M/s. Sri Ranganathar Industries Private Limited, appealed against the judgment and decree of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, in O.S.No.696 of 2011, which decreed the suit in favor of the respondent/plaintiff, M/s. Oriental Hydraulics Private Limited. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of a contract for supply of a 1100 Tons Hydraulic Valve Testing Press and for recovery of the balance sale price of Rs.23,00,000 along with interest. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant placed a purchase order on 07.08.2006, and the plaintiff acknowledged it on 29.08.2006. The price was fixed at Rs.23,00,000 exclusive of taxes, with payment terms: 30% advance, 60% before dispatch, and 10% on commencement of production. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant paid only Rs.6,90,000 as advance and failed to pay the balance, despite the plaintiff manufacturing the machinery and ready for dispatch. The defendant denied the contract and delivery, stating that the purchase order was only a quotation and no machinery was ever manufactured or delivered. The trial court decreed the suit, directing the defendant to pay the balance amount and take delivery. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence, including the purchase order, proforma invoice, and correspondence. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove that the machinery was manufactured or that the defendant accepted delivery. The plaintiff's own documents showed discrepancies, and no independent witness or documentary evidence corroborated the plaintiff's claim. The court held that the burden of proof was on the plaintiff to show delivery and acceptance, which was not discharged. The court also noted that the trial court erred in granting specific performance without proper proof. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree of the trial court were set aside, and the suit was dismissed. No costs.
Headnote
A) Contract Law - Specific Performance - Sale of Goods - Burden of Proof - The plaintiff sought specific performance of a contract for supply of a hydraulic valve testing press and recovery of balance price. The defendant denied delivery and acceptance. The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove delivery and acceptance of the goods as required under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. The trial court's decree for specific performance was set aside. (Paras 2-23) B) Evidence Act - Burden of Proof - Delivery of Goods - In a suit for price of goods, the seller must prove delivery and acceptance. The plaintiff's evidence was found insufficient to establish that the machinery was manufactured and delivered to the defendant. The court noted discrepancies in the plaintiff's own documents and lack of corroboration. (Paras 15-20) C) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 20 - Discretionary Relief - Specific performance is a discretionary remedy and cannot be granted when the plaintiff fails to prove the essential terms of the contract and its performance. The court held that the trial court erred in granting specific performance without proper proof. (Paras 21-23)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff/supplier is entitled to specific performance of a contract for supply of a hydraulic press and recovery of the balance sale price, when the defendant/purchaser denies delivery and acceptance of the goods.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Judgment and decree of the trial court in O.S.No.696 of 2011 dated 23.06.2017 are set aside. The suit is dismissed. No costs.
Law Points
- Specific performance of contract for sale of goods
- burden of proof of delivery
- acceptance of goods
- Section 55 of Indian Contract Act
- 1872
- Section 20 of Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- Sections 31 and 32 of Sale of Goods Act
- 1930
