of a	sum	of	Rs.9,52,405.26 togetherwith	interest	for
short de	livery	of	consignments	entrusted	for
transportation.		The	First Defendant is	a	partnership
firm of	which	the	Second and Third	Defendants	are
partners.	An	agre	ement was entered into	between	the
Plaintiff and	Defend	ants	on 9th September	1992 by	which
the Defen	dants	agreed	to provide	Tank-Lorries	for
transportation	of	bulk	petroleum products.	On	28th
February	1993,	the	Defendants agreed to	transport	500
MT.	of fur	nace	oil from the refinery	of the	Plaintiff

¶16

: 2 :

¶17

at	Mahul t	o	the	Sheva	Bunker	ing Install	ation.	An
amount	calculated	at	the	rate	of	Rs.60.74 p	er kilo	ltr.
was	agreed to	be	paid	to	the De	fendants in	pursuance	of
a	letter dated	28th	Fe	bruary	1993.	Subseque	ntly, by	an
order	dated	30th	April	1993,	the	Defendants	agreed	to
the	transportation	of		the	Plaintiffs’	products	from	the

¶18

refinery to the Sheva Port Installation at the rate of

¶19

Rs.80/- per KL.

¶20

2.		From	time to time, t	he Plaintiffs hand	ed over
furnace	oil	and	light	diesel oil	to	the	Defendant	for
transportation.			The	Defendants	failed	to	deliver	23
consignments		betwe	en 23rd	February	1993	and	28th	June
1993.		The	products	which w	ere	not	delivered	consisted

¶21

of 150 kilo ltrs. of furnace oil and 82 kilo ltrs. of

¶22

light diesel oil of a total value of Rs.13,15,519.68.

¶23

3.		The Defend	ant had furnished a	bank guarant	ee to
secure	its	obligat	ion in	the amo	unt of	Rs.	30,000/-
which	was	encashed	by the	Plaintiff.	The	Plaintiff	has
given	due	credit	to the	Defendant	for	the	amount
received	unde	r the	bank	guarantee,	as well	as	in
respect	of	amounts	payable to	the	Defendants	against	37
bills	after	adjustme	nt and	amounts	payable	to	the

¶24

: 3 :

¶25

Defendants	for	transportation.	The	suit	has	been filed
for the	re	covery of	the	balance	of	Rs.9,52,405/-
together	with	interest.	A notice	of	demand	addressed

¶26

by the Plaintiff on 28th February 1996 did not receive

¶27

any response.

¶28

The Defendants have been served with a writ of

¶29

summons and an affidavit of the bailiff in the Office

¶30

of the Sheriff has been duly filed.

¶31

The Plaintiff has filed an affidavit in lieu of

¶32

examinatio	n-in-chief	of it	s	M	anager, Transp	ort	(retail)
who	has	deposed to	the	averm	ents contained	in	the
plaint.	A	compilation	of	doc	uments has	been	filed.
The	Defendant	has fa	iled	to	respond to the	writ	of
summons	and	to defend	the	suit.	The claim	of	the
Plaintiff	has	remained un	contest	ed.	The claim	of	the
Plaintiff	is	for the	reco	very	of the value	of	23
consignmen	ts	short deliv	ered	by	the Defend	ant	which
were	entrust	ed to the	De	fendan	t for transport	ation	by
the	Plaintiff.	The c	laim	of	the Plaintiff	has	been
duly	proved	and establis	hed	on	the basis	of	the

¶33

documentary material on record and the evidence adduced

¶34

on behalf of the Plaintiff.

¶35

: 4 :

¶36

6.			The Suit	shall according	ly stand	decreed	in
terms	of		prayer	clauses	(a)	and	(b)	subje	ct	to	the
modification			that	the	Plaintiff	sh	all	be	entitle	d	to
interest		on	the	principal	sum	of		Rs.9,52,	405.26	at	the

¶37

rate of 12% per annum from the date of the institution

¶38

of the suit until payment or realization.

Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. M/S. J.D.Carriers and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. M/S. J.D.Carriers and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chalet Hotels Ltd. Vs K.C. Mehta and Anr.

Canara Bank Vs B. Arirman and Anr.

M/S. M. Ramaswamy Consultancy and Associated Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Shirish Betgiri, Proprietor M/S. S and S Sea Foods

The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. Vs Nadeem Zakaria Maklai

M/S. V.P. and Brothers Vs M/S. P.N.R. Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd.

Ashok Kumar v. Pasad Vs Sahadev Vakhuba Jadeja