Defendant's Failure to Supply Goods: Plaintiff Entitled to Reject and Recover.

The court held that the defendant failed to supply equipment meeting the specifications of the purchase order. The plaintiff was entitled to reject the goods under the Sale of Goods Act, recover the amount paid, and receive interest. The trial court's decision was affirmed, dismissing the defendant's appeal and allowing the plaintiff's cross-objection for interest. The defendant could retrieve the equipment upon payment, with no costs awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the equipment supplied by the defendant to the plaintiff satisfies the specifications mentioned in the purchase order.
2. Whether the Number 160 found in the basic equipment Fine Lift FH 160 refers to weight lifting capacity of the equipment or it refers to the total weight of the gripper as well as the job carrying capacity of the basic equipment.
3. Whether the plaintiff has acknowledged the supply of equipment as per the specifications and failed to pay the balance amount as per the contract.
4. Whether the plaintiff is justified in rejecting the equipment supplied by the defendant and filing the suit for recovery of money.
5. To what relief is the plaintiff entitledRs.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue Nos. (i) and (ii):
The plaintiff placed an order with the defendant for equipment capable of lifting 160 kg. The defendant claimed that the equipment's capacity included the weight of the gripper (60 kg), leaving a job weight capacity of 100 kg. The court reviewed the purchase order and communications between the parties, concluding that the equipment did not meet the specified requirements. The court found that the Number 160 in the equipment description referred to the job lifting capacity alone, not inclusive of the gripper weight. The court also noted that the defendant failed to demonstrate that the gripper weighed 60 kg and did not provide sufficient evidence to support their claims. Thus, the court held that the defendant failed to supply equipment meeting the specifications of the purchase order.

Issue Nos. (iii) to (v):
The court examined the plaintiff's right to reject the goods under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. The plaintiff rejected the equipment after finding it did not conform to the contract specifications. The court found that the plaintiff had not accepted the goods and had consistently communicated their dissatisfaction. The defendant's argument that the plaintiff had an opportunity to inspect the goods at the factory was dismissed, as the contract required installation at the plaintiff's site. The court upheld the plaintiff's right to reject the goods and recover the amount paid. The plaintiff was also entitled to interest at 12% p.a. from 02.10.2008 to 28.02.2010 and 6% p.a. thereafter until realization.

Conclusion:
The court confirmed the trial court's judgment and decree, allowing the plaintiff to recover the amount paid with interest. The appeal by the defendant was dismissed, and the cross-objection by the plaintiff was allowed, granting interest as specified. The defendant was permitted to take back the equipment upon payment. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

---