Karnataka High Court Itc Zeneca Limited Now Called As Advanta ... vs Sri Balaji Agro Traders on 13 October, 2009 IN THE HKGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated this the 1331 day of October, ,, PRESENT THE IION'BLE MR. ' _ AND I . _ . THE HOINPBLE MR. JUSTICE C R KUMQASWAMY REGULAR FIRST APPEAL N9. 917 afzorrfz BETWEEN: ITC ZENECAV :r.IMIT%E1)_ ' NOW Ca11e:1'aS V' 'f ' ' ADVANTA INDIA LIMITED' A cOMPA:\IYOIINCQRPO»RATED UNDER THE .COMPANIES ACT, I955 AND HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT " _ NO.._31:,;SSAROJINI' DEVI ROAD . SECUNDERABAD 500 003 'ANT: HAVINOCIIITS BRANCH 3: CORPORATE OFFICE AT 405, 4th: FLOOR A WING, CARLTON TOWERS ._NO;1, AIRPORT ROAD BANGALORE 500 008 I IIEREIN REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORXSED SENGATORY 8: THE COMPANY SECRETARY K. SURESH ...Appe112_;u<3e'LV [By Sri B K SAMPATH KUMAR, ADVo'c£{TE}'_',1L:.: S. 1 SR1 BALAJI AGRO TRA1:)ERS.__ A proprietary concern V ' HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.267/1, RAMAVELAS 'Eo;A..D MYSORE 570 024 'V _ BY ITS PROPRIETQR » SHRI H TP SATHY_A;?€AE'iAYANA._GUPTA 2 ESPAKAGRO NO.285a2b§Dv..CRC)SS. _ .' OFF 'R.a.MAv"I'mSA.eR0AD_ ' V0'24"ee.__ RF3PRESENTED'BY'{TI'$~ BRANCH MANAGER ' ...ReSpondentS ' " {By S¥<:..zV_§V;S'. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; . . 'RE~SPONDENT»2 SERVED) filed under Section 96 r/W/o 41 R 1 of CPC ag?ainSt~ fhe judgment and decree dated 28~52002 passed in 0S"'No.4o2i;1.994 on the ﬁle of the 191*}. cm: Judge [Sr.Dr1.,}, Mysore," devcfeeing the Suit for recovery of money. .Th;iS RFA coming on for hearing this day, N. KUBMR J I, geiixrered the fo1l_oW:i1'1g: J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred defenctants: " challenging the judgment and decree has decreed the suit of the piaintiff 'feta with interest at the rate of front of suit till realisation, d _ if if 2. For the purgaosedddfddb the parties are referred to a they.Vai_~'e re_ferred': tO«.in't1heV_Q_;jiginaI suit. ._ « Balaji Agro Traders is a dealer in various kinds cf "agric:{i1.turaI products inclusive of seeds, fertijiizders etc.' defendant is a deaier dealing with the "the defendants 1 and 2. Defendants I and 2 are A as ITC Ltd. In fact, after the decree passed by the'<«.Tria'i the name of defendants 1 and 2 is changed to Adgvant.a "India Limited pursuant to a transfer and change in ft holding during 1998. After the said change, they are d .._precluded from using the name of ITC Ltd. and thereafter, they E/. are called Advanta India Limited. The said change was registered before the Registrar of Companies Therefore, it is Advanta India Limited which appeal' . V. . 4. The case of the plaintiff purchase of linted cotton seeds.'ggunderuthnegg Zeneca Ltd. DCH 32 for pure.ha'se_ of__1 said seeds. The contract bet\veen'xf:fth.e'f. defendants was concluded on 0?;O4.94,Wiien" th'e.g.pi_aintiff' forwarded a DD vide No.147'7ti'8/4.é;s0/€24' 07.0494 drawn on Vysya Bank Ltd. for¥a"s.un1of in the name of defendant No.1. This amount of was paid as advance at the rate of Rs.ﬂ:50/a_..ﬂ:per KAgf"forthe quantity of 1000 Kgs cotton seeds pf purchased by the plaintiff. As per the terms of the eontract; .plaintiff was entitled to rebate payment at R:5.5/ per The defendants did not perform their part of the A eontract. In turn, plaintiff sustained loss, damage, loss of profits. During the previous khariff season 1993, the plaintiff i/ has secured 1000 Kgs of cotton seeds from M / s. Seeds and Agricultural Products, Bangalore, for fulfilling of the market. ~ 5. When the defendant seeds even after 15.04.94, thellﬁlahintiff visits to the office of the dere;f1a.an:;;"0if§_~,'..[ and the am defendant failed to render reply' for not fulfilling thQ§.con;ji_tiort__ of deliver the cotton seeds in Vlfﬁlaintiff was constrained to address'lhtheﬂdefendants 1 and 2. That corresf)'ond.encewhlais. unanswered. Because of the breach corﬁzinitteddefendants, the plaintiff was not able to the reduvirenlents of the farmers who are his regular 0 In fact, the plaintiff had collected amounts ffronif customers to ensure prompt purchase by such customers. The farmers in turn, were unable to earn proﬁts by 0' ~ useof such seeds. The plaintiff reliably learnt that defendants lgadlfdiverted the seeds booked by the plaintiff to various other kl/. places which would have fetched considerable to the defendants. Hence, plaintiff got issued a legal 19.10.94 claiming the refund of amount and other amounts to which it defendants 1 and 2 did notre:p1y_to Tfie 3rd defendant repiied with a:stotfy._of.._hislowrhcreation. Thus, Rs.50,000/~ is not ~ per Kg Was not paid. Plaintiff has" of Rs.200/ per Kg amountingttoyyy if; is also entitled to damagespvoffls'. the plaintiff preferred a claimhin a Of. by filing the suit. _ 6. '"'~After_'serv_ice~"'of