SYNOPSIS

Harendra Prasad Singh………………………………..Plaintiff

(Director H.P Exim Pvt Ltd)
Versus
SAIL Bokaro Steel Plant and General Manager (Marketing)
SAIL Bokaro Steel Plant…………………………...….Defendant

THE COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING

POINTS:-

 In a nutshell the facts of the present suit state that the plaintiff is
the director of the H.P Exim Pvt Ltd company. He had
participated in an e-auction having a lot no-ST2601 which was
conducted by the defendant’s company. The plaintiff was
offered 116MT of lot ‘ST-2601’ at the H-1 price quoted by the
plaintiff. Accordingly the plaintiff was directed to deposit two
amounts one as security deposit amounting Rs.1,19,538 and the
other amounting Rs.47,41,547 as the cost of the material on or
before 26.08.08.
 The plaintiff had deposited those amounts through check no.-
141001 and 141002 on 22.08.08 drawn on State Bank of India.
But the plaintiff received a letter from marketing manager on
01.09.08 stating that the deposited cheques were returned from
the bank with the remarks “alteration of dates requires
authentication”. But the plaintiff claimed that they have made
no alterations and submitted in proper manner or if any
 alterations had been made then it must be done in connivance
with the marketing department. The plaintiff further stated that
he was prevented from lifting the materials in spite of fulfilling
all the conditions. This led to huge loss to the plaintiff, loss
amounting 4 lakhs and it should be compensated by the
defendant company. The plaintiff sent letters to the defendant
ready to make payments against the materials with the request to
let him participate in the upcoming e-auction. But no concern
had been shown instead accused the plaintiff illogically of
making alterations in the cheques which was actually in the
custody of the marketing department.
 The plaintiff was prevented from participating n the e-auction
for 6 months by the defendant. The plaintiff had sustained the
losses amounting to Rs.5,00,000. The plaintiff also lost his
goodwill in the market and entitled to amount of Rs.5,00,000.
 By the examining the witnesses it was found that the mode of
payment was by demand raft, pay order or bankers’ cheque but
the same was done by depositing cheques. At that very moment
the defendant didn’t raise any issue over that rather accepted it,
so there the company cannot take plea of not paying amount in
proper manner. It was also found that the cheques weren’t
encashed due to alteration. It was admitted that after depositing
the cheques in the marketing department, the plaintiff and his
representatives got no role from there. At the time of the
submission of the cheques there wasn’t any alterations, so it
 could said that plaintiff had no role in making alteration. It
might have happened in the marketing company.

THE COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT SUBMITS THE

FOLLOWING POINTS:-

 The defendant agued that the plaintiff was directed to pay the
amounts of Rs.1,19,538 as security deposit and Rs.47,41,547
as the cost of materials through the mode of demand draft,
pay order or bankers’ cheque but the plaintiff preferred to
deposit the amounts through cheques which was not a proper
mode. The cheques which were deposited in the State Bank
of India, commercial branch were returned by the bank with
the remarks “alteration of dates requires authentication”.
Further the plaintiff was informed about the alteration in the
cheques and was asked to authenticate the cheque but in spite
of the same the plaintiff did not authenticate the cheques and
kept on dodging the issue. The plaintiff also didn’t requested
for the extension of time. The cheques were not encashed so
plaintiff has no right to claim anything. Had there been
cheques in order the defendant would have given permission
to the plaintiff to lift the scrap.
 So instead of depositing the amount in the prescribed mode,
the plaintiff deposited cheques. The plaintiff had not fulfilled
the said conditions. The plaintiff neither authenticated the
cheques nor issued new cheques. Therefore, the defendant is
not liable to pay the compensation.
 ISSUES RAISED

I. Whether the suit is maintainable?

II. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to compensation of
Rs.4,00,000