Court dismisses suit due to procedural errors, contractual issues, and lack of evidence. Plaintiff denied claim and ordered to pay costs.

The court dismissed the suit, ruling that it was not properly instituted against certain defendants, barred by limitation, lacked privity of contract, and failed to prove the terms of the machinery supply agreement. The plaintiff's claim for the sum of Rs. 2,30,017.04 and interest was denied due to discrepancies in payment evidence. The court concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief and ordered the plaintiff to pay costs of Rs. 12,000.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Proper institution of the suit.
2. Barred by limitation.
3. Privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 and 3.
4. Contract for supply of machinery on 'no profit no loss' basis and advance payment.
5. Terms of the agreement for supply of machinery.
6. Effect of the agreement dated 24-1-1981.
7. Deleted issues (7, 8, 9, 10).
8. Entitlement to the sum of Rs. 2,30,017.04.
9. Entitlement to interest.
10. Relief.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue Nos. 1 and 3: Proper Institution of the Suit and Privity of Contract
The plaintiff argued that the suit was properly instituted based on a resolution passed by the board of directors on 14-1-1984, authorizing Shri R.K. Bhalla to file the suit. However, the resolution only mentioned filing a suit against defendant No. 1, not against defendant Nos. 2 and 3. The court concluded that the suit was not properly instituted against defendant Nos. 2 and 3. Additionally, the agreement dated 24-1-1981, which the plaintiff relied upon, was between individuals and did not bind defendant Nos. 2 and 3 to the plaintiff. Thus, there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 and 3.

Issue No. 2: Barred by Limitation
The court determined that the suit was governed by Article 13 of the Limitation Act, which provides a three-year limitation period from the date the goods ought to have been delivered. The order was placed on 2-11-1979, and the delivery was to be made by 2-2-1980. Therefore, the suit should have been filed by 2-2-1983. Since the suit was filed on 20-1-1984, it was barred by limitation. Arguments that the limitation period started from the agreement date (24-1-1981) or from subsequent payments were rejected.

Issue Nos. 4, 5, and 6: Contract Terms and Agreement Effect
The plaintiff claimed the machinery was to be supplied on a 'no profit no loss' basis, referencing the agreement dated 24-1-1981. The court found this agreement pertained to the sale and purchase of shares and did not bind defendant No. 1 company. The terms of the original order dated 2-11-1979 (exhibit D-1) were accepted by the plaintiff, which did not include the 'no profit no loss' basis. The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove the terms and conditions of the machinery supply as alleged.

Issue Nos. 11, 12, and 13: Entitlement to Sum and Interest
The court found that the plaintiff only paid Rs. 3,15,000, not Rs. 4,05,000 as claimed. The receipts provided by the plaintiff were deemed unreliable due to inconsistencies and lack of proper entries in the defendant's account books. Therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to the recovery of Rs. 3,54,217.04 or any interest. The suit was dismissed with costs of Rs. 12,000.

Deleted Issues (7, 8, 9, 10):
These issues were deleted as per the statements of the learned counsel for the parties on 4-8-1998.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the suit, concluding that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief, including the claimed sum and interest, and imposed costs of Rs. 12,000 on the plaintiff.

---