- 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT No. 1545 OF 1991 M/s. The Bombay Hardware Co. ... Plaintiff Vs. K M A Ltd. ... Defendant *** Ms. S. I. Shah i/b S. I. Shah & Co., for the Plaintiff. None for the Defendant. *** CORAM : S. J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 22, 2009. PC 1. The suit is filed to recover the goods and in the alternative for damages for wrongful conversion thereof, in the sum of Rs.37,64,163/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the suit till payment. 2. The plaintiff’s case is that they entrusted from time to time to the defendant raw material belonging to the plaintiffs in the form of brass and copper scrap and zinc and tin for the purpose of conversion thereof into copper sheets and/or strips and P.B. strips as per the specifications sent by the plaintiffs to the defendants. The defendant accordingly converted the raw material and sent the - 2 - finished products to the plaintiffs. Delivery notes used to be executed by the defendants acknowledging receipt of the raw material from time to time. 3. Prior to 31st January 1991 the plaintiffs entrusted the raw material for converting the same into sheets. The further material was also sent in February 1991. After conversion of the material, the defendant submitted a statement of account showing the material in its possession. 4. In March 1991 there was a lock-out in respect of the defendant. A notice was issued suspending the manufacturing activities of the defendant. The defendant by a letter dated 20th March 1991 informed the plaintiff of the same and requested the plaintiff to bear with them till their operations normalized. However, despite the request, the defendant failed and neglected to return the balance quantity lying with it. 5. The suit was filed on 20th April 1991. The plaintiffs apprehended that in the event the bank/creditors of the defendant initiated the proceedings and the Court Receiver being appointed at the instance of the bank, their goods will be mixed up with those of others. In the circumstances, the plaintiffs took out Notice of Motion No. 2197 of 2006 for appointment of the Court Receiver in respect of their goods. 6. Ms. Shah stated that pursuant thereto, the Court - 3 - Receiver returned a large quantity of brass and certain quantity of copper as well. She therefore, fairly stated that the claim now stands substantially reduced in respect thereof. 7. On behalf of the plaintiffs, one Bharat Shah examined himself and he filed two affidavits in lieu of examination-in-chief dated 23rd April 2009 and 31st August 2009. On behalf of plaintiff, a compilation of documents was also tendered and taken on record and marked “A” (Colly). 8. The defendants remained absent. Therefore, there was no cross-examination. No written-statement has been filed. There is nothing on record which militates against the claim of the plaintiff as well as evidence of the said witness. Nor is there anything which indicates the valuation of the raw material stipulated in the particulars of claim to be incorrect. The witness has also furnished the material received from the Court Receiver. The proportionate amount has been reduced from the same. There is now no question of granting the main prayer of return of the goods. The plaintiff therefore, would be entitled to the monetary value of the balance raw material which the defendant failed to return. 9. Out of total quantity of 26,667.24 Kg. of brass the Court Receiver returned a substantial quantity, leaving a balance of 2,830.603 Kg. However out of the total quantity of copper, the plaintiff received only 1136.800 Kg. leaving balance of 10,616.830 Kg. The proportionate adjustment in value has been given in - 4 - respect of the quantities of brass and copper returned to the plaintiff. 10. In the circumstances, the suit is decreed in the sum of Rs.14,40,007/- together with interest thereon at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till payment and/or realization. Refund of court-fees shall be as per rules.