TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (4) TMI 900
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e parties on 02.06.2009 with the following agenda: "AGENDA: Regarding Old outstanding of ₹ 1,49,21,015.00 as per IUP Jindal account statement and Approximately ₹ 1,29,00,000.00 as per M/s Conee Chains Account statement and restart future Business on mutually agreed terms & conditions." and in the Minutes drawn of the said meeting and signed by the representatives of the parties, it was agreed as under: "DISCUSSIONS & CONCLUSION: Mr. Manish Gandhi agreed to reconcile the IUP Jindal A/C statement with their books of accounts. The old pending payment of ₹ 1,49,29,015.00 bearing invoice value as follows: Inv. No. Inv. Date Inv. Amount 11392 22-Feb-07 32,87,749.00 11515 19-Mar-07 37,39,678.00 12249 31-May-07 40,80,909.00 12572 31-Aug-07 38,12,679.00 TOTAL 1,49,21,015.00 It has been mutually agreed that M/s Conee Chains will issue Demand Draft of 35% of the Purchase order value along with every purchase against old pending payment order and additional Rupees fifteen lakh will also be released by Conee Chain in every quarter month against old pending payment as mentioned above. The Purchase order will be released on 20th day of e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent short supply of many sizes ordered and excess of others - though the plaintiff was informed of the same but the defendant never received the shortage quantity and the size supplied in excess are still available with the defendant as dead inventory; the representative of the plaintiff at Chennai Sh. Hanumantha Rao had inspected the defective goods at the defendant‟s factory and had acknowledged the same; (vii) the claim of the plaintiff therefore that amounts are due under the aforesaid invoices is wholly misconceived and a total misrepresentation of facts; (viii) that though the plaintiff had represented its goods to be competitively priced but the defendant had learnt later on that the plaintiff was charging exorbitantly high price for the same material which were available in the market for lesser price - though the plaintiff had been promising to rectify the same, it was never done; (ix) that though the purchase order dated 08.03.2007 placed by the defendant on the plaintiff was at ₹ 240/- per kg., the plaintiff in invoice no.11515 dated 19.03.2007 had priced the material at ₹ 275 and ₹ 251 per kg. and which was never agreed; (x) that the plaintif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....voked the territorial jurisdiction of this Court by pleading in para 13 of the plaint that discussions and negotiations between the parties took place at Delhi; agreement was concluded at Delhi; discussions about delivery of goods took place at Delhi; payment was agreed to be made at Delhi; the payment was tendered at New Delhi; the Letters of Credit were encashed in New Delhi; and number of meetings took place at New Delhi. 9. The defendant in the application for leave to defend has though denied that any of such things happened at Delhi but has not and could not deny the factum of the registered office of the plaintiff being at Delhi. The plaintiff in this regard has invoked the doctrine of „debtor must seek creditor‟ and has relied on:- (i). Startech Enggcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bundelkhand University, 147 (2008) DLT 276 laying down that the place where payments are made or were required to be made would be relevant to determine the territorial jurisdiction. (ii). Ms. Shradha Wassan Vs. Mr. Anil Goel MANU/DE/0490/2009 laying down that the place from which the legal notice preceding the suit and demanding payment on behalf of creditor is sent would have jurisdiction on th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rned, the same is falsified from the Minutes of the meeting held on 02.06.2009. Though the agenda for the said meeting was „reconciliation of the outstanding against the defendant of ₹ 1,49,21,015/- claimed by the plaintiff and the outstanding admitted of approximately ₹ 1,29,00,000/- by the defendant‟ but in the discussions held and conclusions drawn, the defendant agreed to pay ₹ 1,49,21,015/- in the manner as recorded therein. Thus, the grievances even if earlier raised with respect to goods worth ₹ 3,25,898.90 did not survive. It is also not the case of the defendant that after the said meeting on 02.06.2009, the defendant had pointed out any inconsistencies in the accounts or that any reconciliation was carried out. Had the defendant not admitted the liability in the sum of ₹ 1,49,21,015/- on 02.06.2009, the defendant would have thereafter on reconciliation informed its version to the plaintiff and it admittedly was not done. 12. The mala fides of the conduct of the defendant is clearly borne out from the defendant, in spite of the clear admission even in the agenda for the said meeting of the liability of ₹ 1,29,00,000/-, not p....