IN THE CIVIL COURT OF HYDERABAD AT TELANGANA,
(Jurisdiction to be determined by the value of the suit and location of the cause of
action/defendant)
CIVIL SUIT NO. _____ OF 2025
IN THE MATTER OF:
R D PARMANANDKA PVT. LTD.
A company incorporated under the Companies Act,
R D Parmanandka Pvt. Ltd - hypothetical],
Through its duly authorized representative. ... PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
SAPATRANGI PVT. LTD.
A company incorporated under the Companies Act,
Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd - hypothetical],
Through its duly authorized representative. ... DEFENDANT
PLAINT (Under Order VII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, read with Section 26 of
the Code of Civil Procedure.)
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. Introduction: The Plaintiff, R D Parmanandka Pvt. Ltd., is a company engaged in the
business of ladies' wear, which decided to expand into kids' wear. The Defendant,
Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd., is a large manufacturer of kids' wear garments. This suit is filed
for recovery of damages amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty
Thousand Only) due to the Defendant's breach of contract in supplying poor quality
goods and failing to rectify the same.
2. Facts of the Case: a. Plaintiff, R D Parmanandka Pvt. Ltd., in its endeavour to
expand its business into kids' wear, approached the Defendant, Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd.,
for the purchase of kids' wear garments. b. On or about [Date of Contract -
hypothetical], a contract was entered into between Plaintiff and the Defendant for the
purchase of kids' wear garments for a total price of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs
Only). c. As per the agreed payment schedule, the Plaintiff was to pay Rs. 4,00,000/-
partially upon delivery of the garments on January 1, 2017, and the remaining balance
of Rs. 2,00,000/- as full and final payment on March 1, 2017. d. The Defendant duly
delivered the first consignment of garments to the Plaintiff on January 1, 2017, as per
the contract, and the Plaintiff paid the agreed partial amount of Rs. 4,00,000/-. e.
Subsequent to the delivery, the Plaintiff suffered a significant drop in demand for
kids' wear garments due to the loss of a profitable contract with its booking agents.
Concurrently, the Defendant was facing financial difficulties due to legal actions. f.
Recognizing the Plaintiff's financial constraints and its own difficulties, the
Defendant, Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd., on or about [Date, implied around 1st March 2017],
agreed to accept a reduced sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) in full
satisfaction of the remaining debt of Rs. 2,00,000/-. g. Pursuant to this new
agreement, the Plaintiff duly paid the sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the Defendant on March
1, 2017. h. On March 3, 2017, the Defendant delivered the rest of the kids' wear
clothes to the Plaintiff. i. Upon inspection, it was discovered that the clothes delivered
on March 3, 2017, were of poor quality, not conforming to the implied conditions of
merchantability and fitness for purpose expected in such a commercial transaction. j.
On March 4, 2017, the Plaintiff immediately sent a notice to the Defendant requesting
an exchange of the poor-quality clothes. k. The Defendant duly acknowledged and
accepted this notice, thereby implicitly admitting to the defects or agreeing to rectify
the issue. l. However, despite acknowledging the notice, the Defendant failed to
exchange the poor-quality clothes. m. On March 20, 2017, the Plaintiff sent a second
notice to the Defendant regarding the unexchanged clothes, but this notice was neither
acknowledged nor replied to by the Defendant. n. The Defendant's failure to supply
goods of the agreed quality and its subsequent failure to exchange the defective goods
despite acknowledging the initial notice constitute a fundamental breach of contract,
causing substantial loss to the Plaintiff.
3. Cause of Action: The cause of action for the present suit arose on March 3, 2017,
when the Defendant delivered poor quality clothes, and further on March 4, 2017,
when the Defendant acknowledged the notice of defect but failed to act upon it. The
cause of action continues to arise on March 20, 2017, when the Defendant failed to
acknowledge or reply to the second notice, and thereafter continues daily as the
Defendant fails to rectify the breach. The cause of action is still subsisting.
4. Issues and Legal Contentions:
Issue 1: Whether the acceptance of a sum different from that in the contract was
valid, and if it was, then what was the effect of it on the original contract? a. The
Plaintiff submits that the acceptance by the Defendant of Rs. 50,000/- in full
satisfaction of the outstanding debt of Rs. 2,00,000/- on March 1, 2017, was a valid
and legally binding agreement. b. This agreement constitutes a 'remission' or 'accord
and satisfaction' of the debt as per Section 63 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
Section 63 provides that "Every promisee may dispense with or remit, wholly or in
part, the performance of the promise made to him, or may accept instead of it any
satisfaction which he thinks fit." c. By agreeing to accept Rs. 50,000/-, the Defendant,
as the promisee, effectively dispensed with the requirement for the Plaintiff to pay the
remaining Rs. 1,50,000/- of the original balance. d. Effect on Original Contract:
The effect of this valid acceptance was to modify and discharge the Plaintiff's
original payment obligation of Rs. 2,00,000/- under the contract, replacing it with
the new agreed sum of Rs. 50,000/-. Therefore, the Plaintiff's obligation regarding
that specific payment was fully discharged upon payment of Rs. 50,000/-. This
particular dispute is not about the payment of the remaining Rs. 1,50,000/- of the
original debt, but about the breach related to the quality of goods.
Issue 2: Whether there was any breach of contract by Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd? a.
The Plaintiff submits that there was an unequivocal breach of contract by the
Defendant, Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd. b. In a contract for the sale of goods, there is an
implied condition that the goods supplied shall be of merchantable quality and
reasonably fit for the purpose for which they are bought. This implied condition is
enshrined under Section 16 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 (assuming analogous law
in Bloomington). The Plaintiff purchased kids' wear garments for commercial sale,
which necessitates good quality. c. The clothes delivered by the Defendant on March
3, 2017, were found to be of "poor quality," directly violating this implied condition
of the contract. d. Furthermore, the Plaintiff promptly notified the Defendant of the
defects on March 4, 2017, and the Defendant acknowledged and accepted this
notice, indicating an awareness of the defect or an agreement to rectify. e. Despite
this acknowledgment and acceptance, the Defendant failed to exchange the poor-
quality clothes, and subsequently ignored the second notice on March 20, 2017. This
refusal or failure to rectify the defect, after admitting it (or at least agreeing to address
it), constitutes a further and material breach of contract. f. Therefore, the Defendant,
Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd., is clearly in breach of its contractual obligations.
Issue 3: Whether losses were accrued to the plaintiff due to the breach of
contract? a. The Plaintiff submits that substantial losses have accrued directly due to
the Defendant's breach of contract. b. As per Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act,
1872, "When a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is
entitled to receive, from the party who has broken the contract, compensation for any
loss or damage caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course of
things from such breach, or which the parties knew, when they made the contract, to
be likely to result from the breach." c. The poor quality of the kids' wear garments
rendered them unsaleable and unfit for the Plaintiff's business purpose. The Plaintiff
had intended to use these garments for its business expansion, and the defective nature
of the goods has frustrated this purpose. d. The claim of Rs. 1,50,000/- represents the
estimated loss suffered by the Plaintiff due to the non-conforming goods. This loss
can be quantified as the difference between the value of the goods as contracted (good
quality) and the actual value of the goods delivered (poor quality, potentially
rendering them worthless or requiring disposal costs). The Plaintiff had already paid
Rs. 4,00,000/- + Rs. 50,000/- = Rs. 4,50,000/- for goods that turned out to be
defective in the latter consignment. The amount claimed reflects the direct financial
detriment suffered by the Plaintiff as a natural consequence of receiving substandard
goods for commercial use.
5. Valuation and Court Fees: The suit is valued at Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh
Fifty Thousand Only) for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fees. Necessary court
fees have been paid/will be paid as per the Court Fees Act, Bloomington.
6. Jurisdiction: This Hon'ble Court has the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to
entertain and try the present suit, as the cause of action, in whole or in part, arose
within the territorial limits of this Court, and the value of the suit falls within the
pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court.
7. No Other Suit: The Plaintiff states that no other suit, appeal, or proceeding relating to
the same subject matter is pending in any court.
PRAYER:
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: a.
Pass a decree in favour of the Plaintiff, R D Parmanandka Pvt. Ltd., and against the
Defendant, Sapatrangi Pvt. Ltd., for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty
Thousand Only), along with pendente lite and future interest at such rate as this Hon'ble
Court deems fit, from the date of filing the suit until the date of realization. b. Award the
costs of the present suit to the Plaintiff. c. Pass any other and further order(s) as this Hon'ble
Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest
of justice.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PLAINTIFF AS IN DUTY BOUND
SHALL EVER PRAY.
FILED BY:
J.SRINIVAS
ADVOCATE FOR THE PLAINTIFF
PLACE: Hyderabad, Telangana
DATE: [Current Date: June 18, 2025]
VERIFYING AFFIDAVIT
I, [Name of Authorized Representative], son/daughter of [Father's Name], aged about [Age]
years, residing at [Address], and being the duly authorized representative of R D
Parmanandka Pvt. Ltd., the Plaintiff herein, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1. That I am the authorized representative of the Plaintiff and am fully conversant with
the facts and circumstances of the case and am competent to swear this affidavit.
2. That the statements made in paragraphs 1 to 2(n) of the Plaint are true and correct to
my knowledge and belief and based on records maintained by the Plaintiff company.
3. That the statements made in paragraphs 3 to 7 of the Plaint are legal submissions
based on legal advice, believed to be true.
4. That no part of this affidavit is false and nothing material has been concealed
therefrom.
Deponent
Verification: I, the above-named deponent, do hereby verify on this [Current Date: 18th] day
of [Month: June], 2025, at HYDERABAD, TELANGANA, that the contents of the above
affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge, and no part of it is false, and nothing material
has been concealed therefrom.
Deponent
