Allowed

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. Siddharth Automobiles Ltd.

Bombay HC21 Aug 2013S/3135/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The plaintiff sued for dues as a supplier of vehicles to a nonexclusive dealer. The defendant did not appear, leaving plaint averments uncontroverted. The court admitted secondary evidence, found liability undisputed, and decreed the claim along with 9%Interest. The suit category was undefended.

What did the court decide?

Suit decreed for Rs.1,55,49,023.98 with further interest at 9% p.a.; refund of court fees if any.

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs Siddharth… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2013)

S3135-05.doc

Sequeira

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

SUIT NO. 3135 OF 2005.

¶6

Mahindra & Mahindra Limited. .. Plaintiff Vs

¶7

Siddharth Automobiles Limited. .. Defendant

¶8

Mr.Firoz Bharucha i/b M/s JMB Partners, for plaintiff. Mr.Vijay Nakra, Senior General Manager, Sales, of petitioner present. None for defendant .

¶9

CORAM: N.M.JAMDAR, J. Wednesday 21 August, 2013

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

By this suit the plaintiff prays for decree of Rs.1,55,49,023.98 with further interest at the rate of 9 % p.a.

¶12

The plaintiff is a public limited Company dealing in business of manufacturing of vehicles and sales and service. The defendant is also a limited Company. The plaintiff's case in short is that the plaintiff by it's Letter of Intent for Provisional Dealership appointed defendant as its nonexclusive dealer on provisional basis for Utility vehicles, Light Commercial Vehicles, spare parts and accessories, and the defendant has committed defaults in making payments to the plaintiff. Inspite of agreeing to pay the amount to the plaintiff the defendant has failed to do so, hence the suit is filed.

¶13

By the order dated 30 January 2008 passed by Prothonotary and

¶14

¶15

S3135-05.doc

¶16

Senior Master, suit has been transferred to the category of undefended suits. Throughout the proceedings none has appeared on behalf of the defendants.

¶17

The perusal of the plaint shows the following facts.The plaintiff by its Letter of Intent dated 24 June 1997 for Provisional Dealership had appointed the defendant as its non-exclusive dealer for sale of its vehicles. The Agreement was for a period of two years from 1 August 1997 to 31 July 1999. Thereafter the Agreement was extended upto 31 March 2004. Pursuant to the Agreement plaintiff sold, supplied and delivered vehicles, spare parts and accessories to defendant. It is stated in the plaint that defendant committed several defaults in payment of its dues. As on 1 June 2012 total dues outstanding were to the tune of Rs.3,74,00,000/-. The defendant thereafter paid an amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- to the plaintiff in the year 2002 and also gave a bank guarantee of Rs.1,50,00,000/-. On payment thereof the plaintiff resumed it's transactions with the defendant. Some time in September 2002, the defendant paid further amount of Rs.76,80,876/-. The plaintiff invoked the bank guarantee and recovered the amount of Rs.1,50,00,000/-. The plaintiff also debited amount due from another dealer. The defendant thereafter was sent a reconciled statement. The defendant again committed defaults in respect of payment and plaintiff suspended the dealership of the defendant till the dues were cleared. The plaintiff also issued a Public Notice that the plaintiff had stopped taking any bookings in respect of one of it's vehicles for 'Scorpio' through the defendant. The dealership of the defendant was terminated with effect from 28 February 2004. The plaintiff thereafter called on defendant to pay an amount of Rs.153,70,843/-. A meeting was held between the plaintiff and defendant

¶18

¶19

S3135-05.doc

¶20

on 7 May 2004. According to the plaintiff some meetings took place and correspondence ensued thereafter and the defendant agreed to pay its dues. The defendant by letter dated 20 December 2004 forwarded two Demand Drafts one dated 15 December 2004 for Rs.15 lakhs and another dated 18 December 2004 for Rs.4 lakhs towards part payment. Since the remaining amounts were accepted by the plaintiff after giving credit to the defendant, the plaintiff calculated the amounts due as Rs.1,25,13,601/- towards principal and Rs.30,35,422/- towards interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and filed the present suit claiming Rs.1,55,49,023/-.

¶21

The learned counsel for the plaintiff has tendered compilation of documents on record. The witness of the plaintiff is present. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff has placed on record by way of affidavit of evidence that some of the original documents referred in the plaint have been misplaced and inspite of diligent search some of the original documents are not traced. The photo copies of these documents are sought to be placed on record by way of secondary evidence. The original dealership Agreement is placed on record. The original minutes of the meeting are also placed on record. As regard to the photo copies of the documents which are sought to be placed on record by way of secondary evidence they refer to the agreement and the minutes of meeting dated 7 May 2004. The plaintiff is thus permitted to place these documents on record by way of secondary evidence.

¶22

The learned counsel for the plaintiff submited that the dealership Agreement clearly shows the liability of the plaintiff to make the payment. The learned counsel has placed the original minutes on record

¶23

¶24

S3135-05.doc

¶25

signed by the defendant. The learned counsel submitted that if there was any clarification, the defendant was at liberty to seek it but the defendant never reverted back to the plaintiff. It is submitted that thereafter defendant was specifically called upon to respond otherwise the sum of Rs.1,53,70,843/- was to be considered as accepted. The learned counsel submitted that after these amounts, the defendant have made part payment towards the liability.

¶26

The dealership Agreement placed on record shows that plaintiff was to supply vehicles, accessories and spare parts to the defendant who was to act as the dealer of the plaintiff. There was an obligation upon the defendant to pay amount received by the defendant from the sale of the vehicles and parts. The correspondence which is placed on record, especially the minutes of the meeting, show that as far as the liability of the defendant is concerned, it is undisputed. Only question was about the exact amount to be paid to the plaintiff. In the meeting which was held it was decided that if there was any clarification, the defendant would revert to the plaintiff and specify the amount which according to to the defendant was correct. The defendant avoided to do so and merely sought time. Thereafter two letters were written by the plaintiff calling upon defendant to confirm the amounts which was not done by the defendants. Specific figure was communicated to the defendant. In the circumstances, the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the claim made by the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.1,53,70,843/- has to be treated as confirmed will have to be accepted. Furthermore, the defendant has not appeared and filed any Written statement. The averments made in the plaint are uncontroverted.

¶27

¶28

S3135-05.doc

¶29

The plaintiff has claimed an interest at the rate of 9% p.a. Considering that this transaction in question is a commercial transaction the claim of interest at the rate of 9 % p.a. appears to be proper.

¶30

In view of the above, the suit is decreed in terms of prayer clause (a). Refund of Court fees if any, as per rules. After the true copies of the documents are placed on record to the satisfaction of the office, the original documents to be returned to the plaintiff.

¶31

N.M.JAMDAR, J.

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. Siddharth Automobiles Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. Siddharth Automobiles Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Cosmos Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs the Official Liquidator, High Court of Bombay as Provisional Liqudiator Ofimpel Petro Pvt. Ltd.

Bank of India Vs Official Liquidator of M/S Samrat Cylinders and Heavy Engineering Company Private Limited

Ahura Enterprises Pvt.Ltd. Vs the Official Liquidator , High Court Bombay

Captain Manish Kumar, S/O Shri P.K.Sharma Vs Pratibha Shipping Company Ltd., Cin NO.U35110MH1995PLC085742

D. J. Mechanical Pvt. Ltd. Vs Glasstech Industrier India Private Limited Cin- U26100MH1997PTC107962

Prakash Parcel Services Ltd. Vs Indsur Global Ltd., Cin NO.U40100MH1994PLC080707