Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention and Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored” - Punjab & Haryana High Court Emphasizes Bail as the Rule Taxation Law | Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Hotel’s Expenditures on Carpets, Mattresses, and Lampshades are Deductible as Current Expenditures Orissa High Court Upholds Disengagement of Teacher for Unauthorized Absence and Suppression of Facts In Disciplined Forces, Transfers are an Administrative Necessity; Judicial Interference is Limited to Cases of Proven Mala Fide: Patna High Court Act Of Judge, When Free From Oblique Motive, Cannot Be Questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Additional Collector Registration Act | False Statements in Conveyance Documents Qualify for Prosecution Under Registration Act: Kerala High Court When Junior is Promoted, Senior’s Case Cannot be Deferred Unjustly: Karnataka High Court in Sealed Cover Promotion Dispute Medical Training Standards Cannot Be Lowered, Even for Disability’ in MBBS Admission Case: Delhi HC Suspicion, However Strong It May Be, Cannot Take Place Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal No Detention Order Can Rely on Grounds Already Quashed: High Court Sets Precedent on Preventive Detention Limits Tenant's Claims of Hardship and Landlord's Alternate Accommodations Insufficient to Prevent Eviction: Allahabad HC Further Custodial Detention May Not Be Necessary: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case Citing Lack of Specific Evidence High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court A Fresh Section 11 Arbitration Petition Without Liberty Granted at the Time of Withdrawal is Not Maintainable: Supreme Court; Principles of Order 23 CPC Applied Adult Sexual Predators Ought Not To Be Dealt With Leniency Or Extended Misplaced Sympathy: Sikkim High Court Retired Employee Entitled to Interest on Delayed Leave Encashment Despite Absence of Statutory Provision: Delhi HC Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Full Disability Pension and Service Element for Life to Army Veteran Taxation Law | Director Must Be Given Notice to Prove Lack of Negligence: Telangana High Court Quashes Order Against Director in Tax Recovery Case High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court

"Delay in Payment Breaches Hire Purchase Agreement": Calcutta High Court Orders Peermade Tea Co. to Pay Rs.to Tea Board

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court, presided over by Justice Sugato Majumdar, has found Peermade Tea Co. Ltd. in breach of a hire purchase agreement with the Tea Board. The Court has ordered the company to pay Rs. 7,01,274.54 with an interest rate of 8% per annum from the date of the suit's initiation until full recovery.

The legal battle, marked by CS No. 273 of 1992, was resolved on 13th March 2024, involving the dispute over machineries and equipment supplied under the "Tea Machinery Hire Purchase Scheme." Justice Majumdar noted, "Plaintiff is able to establish the monetary claim against the Defendant," emphasizing the delayed payments and failure to adhere to the agreement's terms by Peermade Tea Co.

According to the judgment, the Tea Board, a statutory body under the Tea Act, 1953, had entered into a hire purchase agreement with the Defendant for providing machinery and equipment for their tea garden in Kerala. Despite irregular payments and disputes over the conditions of the delivered machinery, the Court found that Peermade Tea Co. did not fulfill their contractual obligations, leading to the current decree.

Justice Majumdar's decision elaborated that "the Defendant delayed in payment of instalments attracting additional rate of interest and neglected and failed to pay such amount which is a breach of the hire purchase agreement." This breach justifies the Plaintiff's claim for the outstanding amount and additional damages.

In addition to the financial decree, the court has directed that the title of the machinery and equipment will transfer to the Defendant only upon the complete payment of the decreed amount. Failure to satisfy the decree within sixty days will authorize the Tea Board to initiate execution proceedings for recovery of the amount or to take possession of the machinery.

This judgment sets a precedent in matters related to hire purchase agreements, emphasizing the importance of adherence to contractual terms and timely payments.

Date of Decision: 13-03-2024

TEA BOARD Vs. PEERMADE TEA CO. LTD.

Similar News