IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2010 / 1ST ASHADHA 1932 AS.No. 442 of 2001(E) --------------------- OS.519/1991 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S): PLAINTIFF: ------------------------------------------ M/S. VENADU HIDES & SKINS, CHANGANACHERRY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER LIZAMMA THOMAS, NEDIAKALAPARAMPIL HOUSE, VAZHAPPALLY EAST VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADVS. SRI.V.G.ARUN, SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): DEFENDANT: ------------------------------------------------ M/S. JAI BHARATH TANNERS, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER P.S.RAJAGOPAL NAIDU, 14, THYAGARAJAPURAM, VELLORE NORTH, ARCOT DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU. BY ADV. SRI.TOM K.THOMAS THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = A.S. NO. 442 OF 2001 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the Addl. Sub Judge, Kottayam in O.S.519/91. The suit is one for realisation of the amount due under a transaction whereby the plaintiff had supplied Hides and Skins to the defendant Company. It is the case of the plaintiff that on 25.7.88 the defendant purchased 851 pieces of cow hides as per Bill No.41 for a sum of Rs.1,66,200/- and after deducting a sum of Rs.975/- the amount payable to the plaintiff was Rs.1,65,225/- out of which Rs.1,32,925 has been paid and so the case is instituted for the balance amount of Rs.42,300/-. A.S. 442 OF 2001 -2- 2. On the other hand defendant would contend that as per the transaction the finalization of value depends upon the result of the wet blue assortment and when it was done it was found to be of inferior quality and therefore per hide an amount was fixed at Rs.145 and the entire amount due at the rate of Rs.145 was paid to the plaintiff. Now the court below after analysis of the materials accepted the case of the defendant and dismissed the suit. It is against that decision the plaintiff has come up in appeal. 3. Heard. The learned counsel for the appellant would strongly contend before me that the assortment expected is only a physical assortment and not a wet blue assortment and therefore having agreed to purchase the hide at the rate of Rs.195, the defendant cannot go back A.S. 442 OF 2001 -3- on the same and reduce the value. On the contra the defendant would contend as per the trade practice the finality of the value has to be dependent on the result of the wet blue assortment. In this particular case when it was so decided it was found to be of inferior quality and thereafter the defendant had fixed the value at Rs.145 per piece and had paid the entire amount. There cannot be any dispute that the plaintiff had issued an invoice showing the supply of 851 pieces of hides at the rate of Rs.195. The plaintiff also addressed the defendant to take special care while doing the assortment. If really it was an out and out sale from the site itself there was no question of any assortment to be done at a later stage. Assortment means classification. Classification means the quality so far as these hides are A.S. 442 OF 2001 -4- concerned. It is the case of the defendant that after receiving the hides it was found that they were not of a standard quality and when it underwent the wet blue assortment it was found to be of an inferior quality and therefore it was duly informed to the plaintiff to come and have discussion with the Managing Partner or the owners. Initially the plaintiff did not go. So the defendants had addressed their letter directing them to take back the goods supplied. Thereafter they had gone and discussions were held and it was in that discussion the defendant explained about the inferior quality of the hides and then fixed the price of the hides at the rate of Rs.145 per hide. The narrow controversy between the two is whether there is a concluded contract when the physical variation with respect to the number is done or some thing A.S. 442 OF 2001 -5- more is to be done in order to arrive at a finality. The court below found that though the sale consideration was Rs.1,92,000/-, the plaintiff did take only Rs.1,00,000/- and the plaintiff had also written a letter requesting for taking care while doing assortment. It has to be remembered if it was only a physical verification as contended by the plaintiff, one need not have to take that much of care for the purpose of assortment. So as contended by the defendant as per the business practice it was necessary to have quality of the hides tested before a price is fixed finally for the materials supplied. Therefore from the materials available I hold that on wet blue assortment the quality of the hides supplied was found to be inferior and though the Erode market rate was only about Rs.131/- the defendant fixed A.S. 442 OF 2001 -6- the amount at Rs.145 and calculated the value for the hides supplied and had issued a draft for the said amount and receipt of which is not denied by the plaintiff. Therefore I find that the court below was justified in coming to the conclusion that the amount due had been paid by the defendant as per the business practice and nothing remains to be paid to the plaintiff. Therefore I decline to interfere with the decision rendered by the court below and hence the appeal fails and the same is dismissed but under the circumstances without any order as to costs. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/- A.S. 442 OF 2001 -7- M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = A.S. No.442 OF 2001 = = = = = = = = = = = J U D G M E N T 22nd June, 2010.