TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 891
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st made by the plaintiff offering the services of the above said machinery at a rent of Rs.4,75,000/- on 08.10.2007. 3.1. The defendants accepted the said offer and agreed to pay Rs.4,25,000/- as rent instead of Rs.4,75,000/-. It was also agreed that the defendants would pay for grease and oil consumed by the machinery. Pursuant to the said letter of acceptance the machinery was despatched to the work site of the defendants at Bellary on 17.12.2007 and it became operational from 20.12.2007. The Truck was used in Bellary till Match 2008 and thereafter due to moderation in the work at Bellary done by the Principal of the defendants, the Machinery was sent to Cudappah from April 2008, where it was operational till the end of the contract period viz. December 2009. 3.2. According to the plaintiff, though the defendants have been paying the monthly rental for the machinery for a period of eight months by cheque which was encased by the plaintiff at Neyveli, they stopped payment of rent from September 2008. Various e-mails sent by the plaintiff demanding rent were not responded to. Thereafter the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 21.01.2010 calling upon the defendants to pay a s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the date of 04.08.2013 till the date of realisation; 5. To what other reliefs, the plaintiff is entitled to? The issues were recast as follows: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim with interest; 2. It is true to say that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case? 3. To what other reliefs, the plaintiff is entitled to? 6. At trial, the Proprietor of M/s.Jessi Constructions Thiru.V. Lawrance was examined as P.W.1 and one Prakash, an ex-employee of the defendants' Company, was examined as D.W.1. Exhibits A1 to A18 were marked on the side of the plaintiff. No documentary evidence was placed by the defendants. 7. On the recast at Issue No.1, the learned Trial Judge found that the documents produced particularly the reply notice dated 02.02.2010 and the letters dated 08.10.2007 and 16.10.2007 which were marked as Exs. A8, A1 and A2 respectively would demonstrate that there was a concluded contract for hiring the machinery between the plaintiff and defendants. The learned Trial Judge also took into account the evidence of D.W.1 where D.W.1 had admitted that the machinery was in fact hired by the defendants and the portion of the evidenc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 558 11. Contending contra Mr. Chirag Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the evidence of D.W.1 coupled with contents of the reply notices marked as Exs.A8 and A9 would demonstrate that the defendants have never denied the contract or their liability to pay the rent. The learned counsel would also submit that there is no plea regarding break down in the written statement. He would also point out that there is not even a scrap of paper to show that the defendant had complained of the machinery breaking down during the course of the entire contract period for 24 months. The learned counsel would also submit that D.W.1 in his evidence has categorically admitted that the defendants are liable to pay the arrears of rent and they only sought for waiver on the ground that the machinery was not put to use in Cudappah. 12. On the question of jurisdiction, the learned counsel would submit that the offer was made by the plaintiff under Ex.A1 from Neyveli and it was accepted by the defendants vide Ex.A2 dated 16.10.2007. The statement of accounts that has been filed as Ex.A18 would show that the cheques....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the evidence of D.W.1 who was examined on the side of the defendants in his cross-examination D.W.1 has deposed as follows: "I agree that as per the terms and conditions we are bound to pay the monthly rent and the only concession requested to the plaintiff is that to waive the rent for the period when the machine was not put use. I also agree the suit claim made by the plaintiff. The plaintiff had also sent a legal notice on 19.01.20210 under Ex.A7 and reply was also sent under Ex.A8 and A9. The plaintiff has sent another legal notice to Bombay address. I don't agree that we never informed to the plaintiff company about the breakdown of the machine. I agree that there is no documentary evidence to that effect and there is no pleading also in this regard." 15.2. From the above evidence, it is crystal clear that the defendants have never complained about the breakdown of the machinery at any point of time during the subsistence of the contract. We must also point out that there is no plea in the written statement regarding break down or un-utilization or under-utilization of the machinery hired. The defendants in fact claim no knowledge regarding the fact as to whether the machi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iding the present issue. 16.3. The next judgment relied upon by the learned counsel is the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Mountain Mist Agro India (Pvt) Ltd & another v. S.Subramaniyam, reported in ILR (2008) II Delhi 301, that was the case based on a negotiable instrument. Both the parties in that suit were residents of Udagamandalam in Tamil Nadu and were carrying on business at Udagamandalam. A cheque that was issued at Udagamandalam was presented at Delhi and a suit was laid at Delhi. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court had held that mere presentment of the cheque at a place where none of the parties had any business would not invest jurisdiction in the Court therein. Same position was reiterated by the Delhi High Court in Arinits Sales Pvt. Ltd., v. Rockwell Plastic Pvt. Ltd & Ors., reported in ILR (2008) II Delhi 325, in fact the judgment in Mountain West was referred to and relied upon. 16.4. In the case on hand, the facts are slightly different. The offer under Ex.A1 was made from Neyveli and it was accepted, of course from the Head Office of the defendant at Mumbai. The payments were made by the cheques and the cheques were en-cashed at ....