Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 4814 (MAD)

A. v. Balamurugan VS Bush Foods Overseas Pvt. Ltd

2012-11-27

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2012
Judgment : VINOD K. SHARMA, J. 1. The defendant/applicant has filed this application under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S. Rules r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to direct the plaintiff / respondent to forthwith return all the original invoices regarding supplies made by the defendant/applicant to its retail traders (illegally and forcibly) taken away from defendant in the absence of the applicant so as to enable the defendant to realize the amounts due from the retail traders and pay the legitimate dues of the plaintiff. 2. The plaintiff/non applicant has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.43,91,045/- (Rupees Forty Three Lakhs Ninety One Thousand and Forty Five only) together with interest. The plaintiff/non applicant is dealing in Basmati rice and on the request of the defendant/applicant, it supplied Basmati rice to the defendant/applicant for sale. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff/non applicant that rice bags were used to be supplied to the defendant/applicant on the basis of order placed and the invoices raised for selling the rice through defendant. The transaction between the parties was open, mutual and current resulting in continuous supply on the basis of orders placed by the defendant/applicant. The applicant / defendant made payment periodically to the plaintiff/non applicant. 4. It is submitted by the defendant/applicant that when he was away for pilgrimage, then a paper publication was issued to know the whereabouts of the defendant/applicant. The plaintiff/non applicant also forced the family members of the defendant/applicant to deliver all the original invoices under which supplies were made by defendant/applicant, to the retail traders. 5. It is the case of defendant/applicant that he came to know about this on 19.05.2012 and tried to contact the local sales people to ascertain state of affairs with regard to collection of amount due to the defendant from its retail traders on the basis of invoice issued by the defendant. 6. He also sent email calling upon the plaintiff / applicant to explain illegal removal of original invoices. The defendant/applicant has also filed police complaint with the Commissioner of Police. 7. It is the case of the defendant/applicant, that the plaintiff/non applicant has filed an application for interim injunction restraining the defendant/applicant and his agents from in any manner collecting the amounts due to the defendant company from its retail traders. 8. The defendant/applicant has also filed police complaint with the Commissioner of Police. 7. It is the case of the defendant/applicant, that the plaintiff/non applicant has filed an application for interim injunction restraining the defendant/applicant and his agents from in any manner collecting the amounts due to the defendant company from its retail traders. 8. It is further case of the defendant/applicant that the plaintiff/non applicant has collected large amount of money from the retail traders, which was actually due to the defendant/applicant. 9. On the pleadings referred to above, this application has been moved. 10. It is not disputed, that the defendant/applicant has neither filed any case against the plaintiff/non applicant nor has filed any counter claim along with written statement. In absence of counter claim, it is not open to the defendant/applicant to move an application for interim relief, as it is settled law, that no interim relief can be granted, which cannot be granted finally. 11. Thus, the application by defendant/applicant in the suit of plaintiff, in absence of any counter claim, is totally misconceived and is accordingly ordered to be dismissed. 12. Even other wise, it is for the defendant/applicant to prove his case, by leading evidence, and this Court cannot be used for collecting evidence, on behalf of the defendant or plaintiff. 13. No merits. Dismissed. No costs.