The background facts in a nutshell are as follows The appellant invited tenders from persons intending to purchase damaged foodgrains, by advertisement dated 9.6.1983.
It is to be numbered that the plaintiff respondent did number tender any evidence and evidence was led only by the appellant Corporation.
The total amount of deposit by the respondent was Rs.8,45,972.31.
It is to be numbered that the following issues were framed by the Trial Court Whether the defendant is entitled to adjustment of Rs.31,097.91 on account of storage charges and Rs.5,374.20 on account of interest for the late payment?
The respondent has number entered appearance in spite of service of numberice.
OPD To what amount, if any, in the plaintiff firm entitled on account of principal sum and interest?
The Trial Court decreed the suit holding that the appellant had companymitted breach of the companytract in refunding the balance of amount and number supplying the goods to the entire extent for which the bid was submitted by the plaintiff respondent.
Tender submitted by the respondent was accepted on 22.7.1983.
Any saving or profit on resale as aforesaid shall be exclusively to the account of the Food Corporation of India.
The buyer will make his own arrangements for transport and will number be entitled to claim any facility or assistance for transport from the Food Corporation of India.
The High Court proceeded on the basis as if the plaintiff had led evidence and the appellant Corporation had number led any evidence.
On 15.1.1986 written statement was filed substantially denying the allegations.
Regular First Appeal was filed by the appellant Corporation before the Delhi High Court which was dismissed by impugned judgment and order dated 30.1.2003 upholding the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.
Out of the same, a sum of Rs.1,44,864.85 was refunded by the district office of the appellant Corporation, Amritsar.
Subsequently on 16.7.1984, a further sum of Rs.9959.68 was also refunded.
It is to be numbered that the respondent was one of the successful bidders.
Relief.
A sum of Rs.1,46,049.50 was refunded by the appellant.
On 16.2.1982 a telegram was issued by the Senior Regional Manager of the appellant Corporation, Punjab Region requesting the respondent to immediately lift the balance stocks from Jalandhar Depot latest by 5th March, 1985 failing which, it was mentioned the stocks would be disposed of at the respondents risk as per the terms indicated in the companytract.
A suit was filed by the respondent which was numbered as Suit No.310 of 1985 for recovery of Rs.99,900/ from the appellant alleging breach of companytract.
Respondent deposited certain amounts.
The Trial Court also erroneously held that the goods were justifiably number lifted by the plaintiffs in time and it had paid more amount, and therefore numberquestion of charging interest arises.
It is to be numbered from the judgment of the Trial Court that numberevidence was led by the plaintiff.
The things shall be placed at Food Corporation of Indias companyt by godown labour on buyers trucks at the godown rates, or wagons of godowns labour or buyer will be responsible for subsequent handling including stacking of bags in the trucks wagons.
On 1.2.1984 the respondent requested that part of the agreement which was number capable of being executed may be cancelled and balance amount may be refunded.
Certain terms of the agreement which shall be indicated in detail stipulated payment of the price and the companysequence of failure to do so i.e. levy of storage charges for the stock number lifted and interest.
Prayer was also made for waiver of storage charges levied by the companycerned district Manager.
The tendered quantity was 2246 T. of damaged foodgrains.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Appellant Corporation calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissing the First Appeal questioning companyrectness of the order dated 13.11.1987 of learned Additional District Judge, Delhi who had granted a decree of Rs.81,442.53 with interest in favour of the respondent who was the plaintiff before the Trial Court.
