Quick Summary: Mahindra Defence Systems Limited lost an appeal against Ranjana Industries, a small business, over a payment disagreement. The court decided that Mahindra has to pay Ranjana for products they provided, plus interest.
Mahindra Defence Systems Limited (Mahindra) and Ranjana Industries (Ranjana) worked together, with Ranjana supplying products to Mahindra. Problems came up over three orders from January 2017. Ranjana said Mahindra owed them about Rs. 16.16 lakh, which Mahindra disagreed with, saying there were late deliveries and quality problems.
Mahindra said that Ranjana delivered products late and that the products were not up to standard. They claimed to have refused two out of three shipments and wanted a refund and compensation totaling Rs. 61.48 lakh for various losses.
"Mahindra claimed that the delivery was late and the goods did not meet quality standards."
Ranjana argued that Mahindra never sent the products back and had even gained tax benefits from them. They also had to deal with tax issues because of Mahindra's claims.
"Ranjana argued that Mahindra never returned the goods and benefited from tax credits."
The tribunal found that Mahindra didn’t raise their concerns within the 15-day period they were supposed to by law. They decided in favor of Ranjana, ordering Mahindra to pay the amount they owed with interest.
"The tribunal ruled that Mahindra failed to raise timely objections."
The court agreed with the tribunal’s decision and dismissed Mahindra’s appeal. Judge Somasekhar Sundaresan noted that Mahindra’s claims didn’t have any proof and that they didn’t raise their concerns in time.
"The court found no evidence supporting Mahindra’s claims and upheld the payment order."
The court highlighted that big companies like Mahindra should have sensible legal strategies and avoid unnecessary legal fights, especially with smaller businesses.
"Large companies must adopt reasonable litigation policies and avoid unnecessary disputes."
Mahindra must pay Ranjana Rs. 16.16 lakh plus interest and cover extra legal costs. This case highlights the importance of raising concerns on time and being fair in business dealings, especially when working with smaller businesses.
