CO.PET.--312/2015. Case: NILKAMAL BITO STORAGE SYSTEMS PVT LTD Vs. BRAHMA AUTO INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | CO.PET.--312/2015 |
| Citation | NA |
| Judgement Date | July 24, 2017 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 06th July, 2017
Pronounced on: 24th July, 2017
+ CO.PET. 312/2015
NILKAMAL BITO STORAGE SYSTEMS PVT LTD
..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Pankaj Bhagat, Advocate versus
BRAHMA AUTO INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD
..... Respondent
Through : Mr. Nishit Kush, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA
YOGESH KHANNA, J.
1. The petitioner is a private limited company, engaged in business of manufacturing, purchasing, supplying, distributing dealing in all kind of extensive range of quality products for food service industry. Respondent is also a company and it purchased the goods from the petitioner vide purchase orders in the year 2012. The goods supplied through various invoices and the petitioner on 27.11.2012 received a part payment of ₹1,60,000/- vide a cheque leaving principle balance outstanding of ₹5,17,723/-. It is alleged that vide correspondence dated 25.10.2013 the petitioner had requested respondent to pay the balance amount and that in its e-mail
CO.PET. No.312 of 2015 Page 1 of 7
09.12.2013 the officials of the respondent rather admitted a sum
₹5,17,723/- is payable to the petitioner as per their books of account
had even issued the C-form under the provisions of Sales Tax Act having distinctive No.1330326 covering all the invoices raised for the supplies made by the petitioner. It is an admitted fact that by 21.01.2013
21.03.2013 all the goods were supplied and installed as per specifications in the two purchase orders issued by the respondent the respondent had rather appreciated the effort of the petitioner.
14.02.2014 the petitioner even visited the factory of the respondent
had replaced issue pellet with steel deck pellet even though it was beyond the scope of the purchase order, but only to maintain good relations. petitioner had sent various reminders/requisitions to clear the outstanding but to no avail and despite promises by the respondent no payment made and hence a statutory notice dated 28.03.2015 was sent to respondent company both at its registered office address and its corporate office address. The notice sent at the registered address returned remark „left without address; however on 29.03.2015 the statutory notice sent to the corporate office was duly served. Hence this petition.
2. The respondent in his reply took the usual plea that the goods supplied were defective and not upto the mark.
3. I have gone through the contents of the petition as also various...
To continue reading
Request your trial