Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 227 (CAL)

Tea Board v. Haroocharai Tea Estate

2014-03-18

DEBANGSU BASAK

body2014
ORDER : The suit was for declaration of ownership and alternatively for a money decree. The defendants did not appear at the hearing of the suit. The plaintiff adduced evidence through one witness and produced various documents. 2. The plaintiff gave machineries to the defendants on hire purchase. The first defendant was a partnership firm of which the second to the fifth defendants were partners. The plaintiff and the first defendant entered into an agreement dated June 8, 1988 being Exhibit D. By such agreement the plaintiff agreed to supply on hire purchase the machinery and equipment described in the first Schedule to such agreement. The agreement provided that the first defendant would pay earnest money to the plaintiff. The first defendant would also pay installments as mentioned in the agreement. 3. In consideration of the plaintiff agreeing to grant such hire purchase facilities the second to the fifth defendants executed supplementary hire purchase agreements. 4. Pursuant to in terms of the hire purchase agreement the plaintiff purchased the machineries and equipments and delivered the same to the tea estate of the first defendant at Assam. The first defendant, however, failed, neglected and made defaults in making payment of the installments under the hire purchase agreement. The plaintiff called upon the defendants to pay. The plaintiff issued letters in that regard. The defendants not paying, the plaintiff caused their Advocates to issue a demand notice to the defendants. In spite of due receipt of such letters the defendants failed, neglected and refused to pay the plaintiff. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the instant suit and prayed for recovery of the amount outstanding as well as a declaration as prayed for. 5. In evidence the plaintiff established the hire purchase agreements as well as other documents and the letters of demand. The plaintiff produced two ledgers which proved that a sum of Rs.6,40,085/- was due and payable by the defendant as principal and a sum of Rs.6,00,550/- as interest calculated up to April 24, 1995. The defendants agreed to pay interest at the rate of 14.5% per annum. The defendants failed to pay in terms of the hire purchase agreement. The plaintiff, therefore, continued to remain the owner of the machineries and equipment described in the first Schedule to the Hire Purchase Agreement. 6. The plaintiff will, therefore, be entitled to a decree in terms of prayer (b) of the plaint. The defendants failed to pay in terms of the hire purchase agreement. The plaintiff, therefore, continued to remain the owner of the machineries and equipment described in the first Schedule to the Hire Purchase Agreement. 6. The plaintiff will, therefore, be entitled to a decree in terms of prayer (b) of the plaint. The plaintiff would also be entitled to a decree for specific delivery of the machineries and equipments described in the first Schedule of Exhibit D. In the event the plaintiff did not receive specific delivery of such machineries and equipments the plaintiff would be entitled to the sum of Rs.12,40,635/- from the defendants. The plaintiff will also be entitled to interest at the rate of 14.5% on the sum of Rs. 6,40,085/- on and from April 24, 1995 until the realization. 7. C.S. No. 209 of 1995 is decreed accordingly. The plaintiff will be entitled to assess cost of Rs.50,000/-. Order accordingly.