2013 (4) TMI 900

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....,765/- towards interest @ 12% per annum from the due date of payment of each of the aforesaid invoices and till the date of institution of this suit. It is further the case of the plaintiff that a meeting was held by the parties on 02.06.2009 with the following agenda: "AGENDA: Regarding Old outstanding of Rs. 1,49,21,015.00 as per IUP Jindal account statement and Approximately Rs. 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 Rs. 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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d in the books of account of the defendant can be said to be due when disputes have been raised with regard to the materials relating to invoices reflected in the accounts. All such amounts contained in the books of account are subject to such disputes."; (vi) that the plaintiff sent 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; ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t has not been able to produce the letter qua any other supplies it is obvious that the pleas qua the other supplies are without any basis. 7. I have weighed the rival contentions aforesaid. I will take up the aspect of territorial jurisdiction first. 8. The plaintiff has invoked 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 b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....elhi also would have jurisdiction on the principle of „debtor must seek creditor‟ and it cannot be said that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 11. As far as the only other plea of the defendant on the basis of the letter dated 28.06.2007 is concerned, 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 Rs. 1,49,21,015/- claimed by the plaintiff and the outstanding admitted of approximately Rs. 1,29,00,000/- by the defendant‟ but in the discussions held and conclusions drawn, the defendant agreed to pay Rs. 1,49,21,015/- in the manner as recorded therein. Thus, the grievances even if earlier raised with respect to goods worth Rs. 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 Rs. 1,49,21,015/- on 02.06.2009, the defendant would have thereafter on reconciliation informed i....