Delayed supply does not defeat payment liability where delivery is accepted and no contractual right to withhold payment exists.

Acceptance of delivery and issuance of a cheque supported liability to pay, and a mere grievance of delayed supply did not excuse payment where the contract conferred no right to withhold payment or cancel the transaction on that ground and no counterclaim for damages was pursued. The territorial objection also failed because part of the cause of action arose in Bengaluru, the defendant participated in the trial, and no prejudice was shown. The decree in favour of the plaintiff was therefore affirmed on the stated grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant established that the goods and components covered by the purchase order were not supplied in time, or that delayed supply absolved it from liability to pay the suit claim; (ii) Whether the Commercial Court at Bengaluru lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant established that the goods and components covered by the purchase order were not supplied in time, or that delayed supply absolved it from liability to pay the suit claim.

Analysis: The evidence showed that the appellant had placed the purchase order, accepted delivery, and issued a cheque towards the transaction. The correspondence relied upon demonstrated that the grievance was only of delay, not non-supply, and also showed a request to hold the cheque for a few days. The contract did not provide a right to withhold payment or cancel the transaction on the ground of delay, and no counterclaim or action for damages was pursued. The presumption arising from the issued cheque also remained unrebutted.

Conclusion: The appellant failed to establish short supply or delayed supply as a defence to payment, and liability to satisfy the claim was upheld against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the Commercial Court at Bengaluru lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Analysis: The record supported the finding that part of the cause of action had arisen within Bengaluru. The appellant participated in the trial and led evidence, and no prejudice was shown from the forum in which the suit was tried. The jurisdictional objection therefore did not succeed.

Conclusion: The Commercial Court at Bengaluru had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Final Conclusion: The decree in favour of the plaintiff was affirmed and the appeal failed on all substantive grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: A party who accepts delivery and issues a cheque towards the transaction cannot avoid payment merely by alleging delayed supply, unless a contractual or proved legal right to withhold payment is established; a territorial objection also fails where part of the cause of action arose within the forum and no prejudice is shown.

---