Telangana High Court
AS/1146/1995 of A.P.STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION Vs P.ANJAIAH on 28 December 2012
SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT No.1146 OF 1995 JUDGMENT:- The 1st defendant in O.S.No.55 of 1988 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Nalgonda, is the appellant herein. The suit was one filed for recovery of money. 2. The allegations in the plaint go to show that
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAOAPPEAL SUIT No.1146 OF 1995
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT:-
The 1[st] defendant in O.S.No.55 of 1988 on the file of theCourt of Subordinate Judge, Nalgonda, is the appellant herein. Thesuit was one filed for recovery of money.
2. The allegations in the plaint go to show that the plaintiff was astockiest for distribution of rice in Nidamanoor Taluk of the appellantherein from 17.07.1984 to 30.04.1985 and he has to be paidcommission of Rs.2.31ps., per quintal. The plaintiff has furnished bankguarantee of Rs.1,50,000/- and also deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/-and necessary documents were executed. The plaintiff came to knowthat 1[st] defendant invoked the bank guarantee and a legal notice wasissued stating that the plaintiff is not due for any amount and on theother hand, 1[st] defendant had to pay a sum of Rs.8,085/- to the plaintiffand the plaintiff is also entitled for refund of the security deposit. Theplaintiff further alleged that the contentions raised by the 1[st] defendantin the reply notice about short supplies are not correct.
3. The appellant herein filed a written statement admittingappointment of the plaintiff as an agent, furnishing of bank guaranteeand also security and commission @ Rs.2.31 paise per quintal. Theplaintiff failed to account for 181 quintals 28 kilograms and 10 grams ofthe stocks supplied to him and also failed to account for 844 quintals ofNEP and NLG rice supplied to him. The Mandal Revenue Officer hasreceived a sum of Rs.1,62,679.15 ps., from the 1[st] defendantcorporation towards the above value and the plaintiff has to reimbursethe same. The plaintiff has to pay more than Rs.5,43,695.25 ps., andby adjusting the bank guarantee, deposit and commission amount, stillthe amount due to the 1[st] defendant. The 2[nd] defendant in the suit alleged that the bank guarantee was encashed as per the statutoryright. Another suit was filed by the 2[nd] defendant bank for recovery ofthe amount due under the bank guarantee encashed by the appellantherein.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings, necessary issues havebeen framed. Both the suits were tried together and suitO.S.No.55/1988 and also the counter suit were decreed. Aggrieved bythe judgment and decree in O.S.No.55 of 1988, the present appeal isfiled.
5. The points that arise for consideration are;
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the interest claimed?
2. Whether the amount claimed by the plaintiff is proper?
6. POINTS:
There is no dispute about the fact that the bank guarantee andalso the security amount were encahsed by the appellant herein. There was correspondence between the plaintiff and the 1[st] defendantunder Exs.A.2, A.5 and A.6. Exs.A.7 to A.201 are the release ordersand the 1[st] defendant/appellant herein has filed Exs.X6 and X7 whichdo not cover the entire period of May, 1984 to June, 1985. Theevidence of D.W.1 clearly disclosed that there was no shortage in thedistribution of rice by the plaintiff till February, 1985. The dispute isonly for 2 months. The plaintiff claimed distributing 4241 quintals inMay, 1985, whereas the 1[st] defendant says it is less by 200 quintals. So far as the distribution in the month of June is concerned, there issaid to be shortage of 150 quintals, whereas the evidence of D.W.1also does not support the alleged shortage pleaded in the writtenstatement. In fact, part of the distribution was said to have beenhanded over to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Nidamanoor, duringJune, 1985. Consequently, the claim of the appellant herein that shortage in the supply of rice was not accepted by the court below. Itis also further held from the evidence of D.W.1 and Ex.A.203 theplaintiff is not liable for any stocks of A.P. Essential CommoditiesCorporation, for which the above amount has been encashed. Therefore, the court below rightly found that the encashment of thebank guarantee and withholding of deposit of Rs.50,000/- are notlegal.
7. The learned counsel for appellant contends that granting ofinterest @ 17.5% is excessive. On the other hand, the counsel forplaintiff contends that in the counter suit, consequent upon theencashment of the bank guarantee, the same interest was directed tobe paid by the plaintiff and therefore, the interest cannot be said to beexcessive. Furthermore, as per the terms of the contract also, theappellant can charge interest at 23%. Taking into considerationall the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any ground tointerfere with the judgment of the court below.
8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Each partyshall bear their own costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending inthese appeals shall stand closed.
_______________________________
JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO
Date: 28.12.2012INL