IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA O.S.A. No: 11 of 2002 Date of decision: 23.4.2008 M/s Hindustan Breweries and Bottling Ltd. and another ..Appellants Versus M/s Agro Industrial Packaging India Ltd. ..Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants: Mr.Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Praneet Gupta, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, vice Mr. D.N. Ronta, Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral). This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 6th May, 2002 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court in Civil Suit No. 12 of 2000 partly decreeing the suit of the respondent-plaintiff. The facts briefly stated are that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) is a Government owned Company. It is engaged in the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 manufacture of cartons for packaging of fruits and other products. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 11,65,010/- from the appellants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants). The case set up by the plaintiff was that the defendants-company had placed supply order for supply of 2,50,000 cartons with the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.7.10 paise per carton. It was further urged that 74,675 cartons valuing Rs.5,35,494.42 paise were supplied by the plaintiff to the defendants. It was further averred that 50,325 cartons which were manufactured by the plaintiff on the orders of the defendants were not lifted by the defendants. The value of these unsupplied cartons was Rs.3,60,880.57 paise. Thus, a sum of Rs. 8,96,375/- was claimed on account of principal, Rs. 2,68,635/- was claimed as interest @ 18% per annum upto the date of filing of the suit and thereafter interest at the rate of 18% per annum was claimed. The defendants admitted that they had placed supply orders. They also admitted receipt of 74675 cartons. However, according to the defendants the cartons supplied were of inferior quality and were made of substandard material and hence the defendants company denied its liability to pay the value of the carton supplied. 3 The defendants stated that it had suffered a loss on account of inferior material supplied to it. As many as 13 issues were framed on the pleadings of the parties. It is not necessary to reproduce all the issues since a large number of them were decided in favour of the defendants. The learned Single Judge held the plaintiff entitled to a sum of Rs. 5,35,494/- being the costs of the cartons actually supplied by it to the defendants and interest thereupon at the rate of 18% per annum. The main question which arises for consideration is whether the material supplied by the plaintiff was substandard and whether the plaintiff suffered damages due to supply of substandard material and was, therefore, entitled not to pay the amount due. The defendant has denied that 74675 cartons were supplied to it. It has also not denied that the value of such cartons at the rate of Rs. 7.10 paise per carton works out to Rs. 5,35,494.42 paise. The only defence raised was that the cartons supplied were of inferior quality, not upto the specifications laid down in the contract and substandard material had been used and, therefore, the defendants were not liable to pay this amount. The defendants did not lead any evidence 4 whatsoever to show that the quality of cartons was substandard. No evidence was led to prove that the cartons supplied did not meet the stipulation of having bursting strength of 5 kg per cm2. Therefore, the defendants were rightly held liable to pay costs of these cartons. The interest has also been awarded strictly in accordance with the stipulation contained in the bills of the plaintiff-company. There is no error in the judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal being without any merit is dismissed with costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. April 23, 2008(K) ( Rajiv Sharma ), J.