Dismissed

Botil Tools India Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Atlas Engg. Industries Pvt.Ltd.

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Jan 2010RSA/1149/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant challenged concurrent judgments decreeing a suit for recovery of machinery price and dismissing a counter-claim for delay loss. The High Court upheld the lower courts' findings that the delay was condoned and the missing braking system justified non-commissioning by the respondent, rejecting the contention that the findings were perverse under Section 100 CPC.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Botil Tools India Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

R.S.A No. 1149 of 2006

¶2

::1::

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

R.S.A No. 1149 of 2006 Date of decision : January 12, 2010

¶5

Botil Tools India Pvt Ltd,

¶6

...... Appellant (s)

¶7

¶8

M/S Atlas Engineering Industries Pvt. Ltd

¶9

...... Respondent(s)

¶10

¶11

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI

¶12

*******

¶13

Present : Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jaivir Chandel, Advocate for the appellant.

¶14

Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shekhar Verma, Advocate for the respondent.

¶15

*******

¶16

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the

¶17

judgment ?

¶18

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

¶19

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

¶20

¶21

AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral)

¶22

This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below partly decreeing the suit of the respondent for recovery of balance price of the machinery supplied by the respondent to the appellant.

¶23

The case set up by the respondent was that the appellant had ordered specialized machine viz Cross Sliding Turret Lathe and had not paid the full price thereof. The case of the appellant on the contrary was that though the machine had been ordered by the appellant yet because of

¶24

R.S.A No. 1149 of 2006 ::2::

¶25

delay on the part of the respondent in supplying the machine, as well as their inaction in not commissioning the same, not only the respondent was not entitled to the remaining price but also on the contrary the appellant was entitled to Rs.7,48,800/- on account of loss suffered by it due to delay in supplying the machine and its non-commissioning.

¶26

Both the Courts below after analysis of the entire evidencemost of which is documentary- came to the conclusion that the delay, if any, was condoned by the appellant.

¶27

The following questions have been proposed :-

¶28

“ (a) Whether the approach of the learned Courts below in ignoring the exhibited documents produced by the appellant and instead misread and misinterpreted the documents relied upon by the appellant, while decreeing the suit and dismissing the counter claim filed by the appellant, can be sustained in law ?

¶29

b) Whether in view of the meaning of word “commissioning/installation, as per legal dictionary, the approach of the learned Courts below in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent and dismissing the counter claim of the appellant, is not illegal and unsustainable in law ?

¶30

c) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the instant case the approach of the learned Courts below in making out a new case for the plaintiff/respondent can be sustained in law ?”

¶31

As regards question No. (a), counsel for the appellant has taken

¶32

R.S.A No. 1149 of 2006 ::3::

¶33

me through a mass of documents to point out that specific contents of some relevant documents have been ignored. In my opinion, in a case where evidence runs into hundreds of pages, no Court can possibly refer to each and every document. However, a perusal of the judgments of the Courts below reveals that the evidence has been considered as a whole in the right perspective. Consequently, the finding of fact by the Courts below that the delay, if any, in the supply of the machine/its commissioning was condoned has not been shown to be either based on no evidence or based on such misreading of evidence so as to render the same so perverse as to be liable for interference under Section 100 of the CPC.

¶34

As regards question No. (b), both the Courts below have found that the respondent could not commission the machine because in the original purchase order one integral part i.e braking system had not been added and consequently no fault could be laid on the respondent for not commissioning the machine. As regards question No. (c), counsel for the appellant has not been able to convince me that a new case had been made out by the Courts below.

¶35

Consequently, holding the questions proposed against the appellant, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶36

( AJAY TEWARI )

¶37

January 12, 2010. JUDGE `kk'

Botil Tools India Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Atlas Engg. Industries Pvt.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Botil Tools India Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Atlas Engg. Industries Pvt.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagpur Golden Transport Co. Vs Suresh Mehra and Ors.

Ram Chand Vs Kashmiri Lal

Khushal Singh Vs State Bank of Patiala and Anr.

Lakshmi Chand and Others Vs Ganga Devi and Others

Nanak Chand Vs Shakal Panchayat Dharmashala and Ors.

Kaur Singh Vs Kanshi Ram and Ors.