Delhi District Court
And Having Its Branch Office At vs M/S. J. J. Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd on 10 May, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. PITAMBER DUTT; ADJ (CENTRA)17,DELHI
Suit No. 387/09
Unique Case ID No. 02401C0645782008
M/s. HTL Logistics India (Pvt) Ltd.
Having its Registered Office at:
315 & 316, 2nd Floor,
Oxford Towers, No. 139, Kodihalli,
Airport Road,
Bangalore560008.
And having its Branch Office at:
'ESTEL HOUSE', 2nd Floor, Plot No. 126,
Sector44, Institutional Area,
Gurgaon122002 .....Plaintiff
Versus
1 M/s. J. J. Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd.
46A, Pocket A,
Mayur Vihar, PhaseII,
Delhi110092 .....defendant no. 1
2 Mr. Joydeep Nayar,
Director,
J. J. Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd.
46A, PocketA,
Mayur Vihar, PhaseII,
Delhi110092 ....defendant no. 2
Suit no. 387/09 Page 1/20
3 Mr. Kesar Singh,
Director,
J. J. Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd.
46A, Pocket A,
Mayur Vihar, PhaseII,
Delhi 110092 ........Defendant no. 3
Date of Institution of Suit : 28.04.2008
Date when reserved for orders : 06.05.2011
Date of Decision : 10.05.2011
JUDGMENT
1 Vide this judgment I shall decide a suit for recovery of Rs. 4,48,752/ alongwith pendentlite and future interest filed by the plaintiff against the defendant. The brief facts necessitating in filing the present suit are given as under:
2 That plaintiff is company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and carries on business of freight forwarding. Defendant is a partnership firm carries on the business of export and import of various types of goods. It approached for the services of the plaintiff to export goods from New Delhi to various countries the defendants had booked shipment with the plaintiff for which plaintiff raised various invoices on defendant no. 1, from time to time amounting to Rs. 11,95,196/ towards the service rendered by it during the year 2005, however, defendant no. 1 failed and neglected to pay the aforesaid amount despite repeated requests. After repeated follow Suit no. 387/09 Page 2/20 ups, defendant no. 2 & 3 on behalf of defendant no. 1 issued 5 cheques amounting to Rs. 9,41,025/ towards the part payment, however, all those cheques were dishonored upon presentation. After constant follow up defendant no. 1 issued demand draft for a sum of Rs. 6,27,017/ against the first three dishonored cheques, but no payment was made against the remaining two dishonored cheques, consequently plaintiff was forced to file a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. During the pendency of the said complaint, defendant no. 1 paid a sum of Rs. 3, 14,008/ to the plaintiff and the plaintiff withdraw the said complaint. Thus, defendant no. 1 paid a sum of RS. 9,41,025/ and a sum of Rs. 2,54,1711/ towards four invoices still remains due and payable.
The plaintiff issued legal notice dated 09.01.2008 calling upon the defendant to pay the total outstanding amount of Rs. 4,29,843/ i.e Rs. 2,52,808/ being the principle amount and Rs. 1,77,035/ being the interest @ 25% p.a from 01.09.2005 to 31.12.2007. However, instead of making the payment defendant sent reply dated 23.01.2008 raising frivolous pleas. On the basis of the above present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant. 3 Pursuant to the summons defendants appeared and filed written statement taking various preliminary objection that the suit does not disclose any cause of action as no money is payable by the defendants. That suit is bad for misjoinder of parties, that in fact the Suit no. 387/09 Page 3/20 plaintiff is liable to pay a sum of RS. 10 lacs to defendant no. 1. 4 On merit, it is stated that plaintiff was extremely negligent in providing services to defendant no. 1. and has been raising fabricated bills, claiming exaggretted amounts which were never due. The plaintiff also delayed the shipments and acted in a very unethical manner by wrongly and illegally stuffing other items in the container of defendant no. 1. It is stated that cheques amounting to Rs. 9,41025/ were issued in normal course of business, however, it was detected that the plaintiff had raised fabricated bills which were duly pointed out to the plaintiff and the plaintiff had apologized for the same and reduced the amounts of such fabricated bills. The cheques were issued by the defendant were dishonored due to financial constraints caused due to the delay in delivery of the consignment by the plaintiff. But the defendant made payment vide demand drafts in lieu of most of the dishonored cheques. The plaintiff filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act pertaining to the cheque totaling to Rs. 3,14,008/ and defendant no. 1 promptly paid the said some on an understanding that both the parties shall be left with no claim against each other. The defendant no. 1 also gave up its claim of damages amounting to RS. 10 lacs in order to close the matter ones for all. It is denies that a sum of Rs. 2,54,171/ is payable by the defendant no. 1 to the plaintiff towards the alleged short payment of four invoices. It is stated that claim of the plaintiff are totally baseless Suit no. 387/09 Page 4/20 and malafide as the defendant no. 1 as made payment against the invoices no. 00050A dated 28.05.2005 amounting to Rs. 1,53,919/. Defendant no. 1 had made excess payment of Rs. 89,290/ and the same has been admitted by the plaintiff. Similarly, plaintiff has admitted that it had claimed excess payment of Rs. 47,569/ and another excess payment of RS. 28,290/ towards the other two fabricated bills. In facts the plaintiff has admittedly received the excess payment of Rs. 1,65,149/ towards the aforesaid three bills including bills no. 00050A. Rather the plaintiff is liable to pay the damages to defendant no. 1 for which defendant no. 1 has raised debit note. 5 Defendant no.1 has also filed counter claim on the averments that plaintiff with malafide intention and unauthorizedly stuffed some food items in the FCL container of defendant no. 1 which was to contain only shoes exported by defendant no. 1. Due to said illegal act and misconduct the Harbour Authorities of U.K withheld the container and did not release it for 5 weeks. The delivery to ultimate customer was delayed and the customer deducted a sum of Rs. 323,642/ from the bills issued by defendant no. 1 on account of the delay caused in release of said consignment. Defendant no. 1 suffered loss of fact and reputation before its valued customer which further resulted in loss of future business and goodwill. Defendant no. 1 sent EMail dated 09.05.2005 informing the loss suffered by them and raised debit note dated 29.07.2005 for a sum of Rs. 3,23,642/ against Suit no. 387/09 Page 5/20 the plaintiff. Plaintiff had been negligent, deficient in providing service to defendant no. 1. The FCL container of defendant no.1 bearing the consignment No. JJ/85 was scheduled for 07.03.2005 but due to the negligence of the plaintiff, same was delayed at Mumbai, Harbour till 21.03.2005 due to which defendant suffered loss of Rs. 2,40,000/ as the customer deducted the bill of defendant no. 1 @ 5% for every weeks delay. Defendant no. 1 also suffered loss due to the duty act of the plaintiff therefore which cause loss of Rs. 78,000/. Therefore the defendant no. 1 is entitled to claim said sum of Rs. 10 lacs, but the defendant no. 1 did not press the same as the plaintiff had reached to an understanding with defendant no. 1 before the criminal court at Patiala House Courts, New Delhi that no party shall make any claim against each other. By way of counter claim, defendant is claiming a sum of Rs. 7,81,937/ against the plaintiff. 6 Plaintiff filed written statements to the counter claim taking preliminary objection that the claim is barred under the Provision of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. That defendant no.1 has filed counter claim to extract pressure on the plaintiff. The averments on merit have also been denied. It is denied that plaintiff had stuffed food items in the FCL Container of defendant no. 1. It is also denied that Harbour Authorities has withheld the container for 5 weeks due to the act of the plaintiff. It is denied for want of knowledge that the customer of the defendant no.1 deducted a sum of Rs. 323,642/ from Suit no. 387/09 Page 6/20 the bills raised by defendant no. 1 on his customer. It is also denied that plaintiff had been neglected and deficient in providing services to defendant no. 1 land FCL container was delayed in Mumbai due to the any act of the plaintiff. It is denied that defendant no. 1 suffered any loss due to the negligence of the plaintiff. It is stated that plaintiff took each and every step under instructions and on behalf of defendant no. 1 hence it was not responsible in claiming zero duty draw back for the defendant. It is stated that the counter claim of defendant no. 1 is an after thought and liable to be dismissed. All other averments have also been denied. It is prayed that counter claim of the defendant being devoid of merit be dismissed be cost.
7 On the basis of the pleadings of the parties vide order dated 04.03.20010 following issues have been framed for adjudication:
1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of recovery of Rs. 4,48,727/? OPP
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the interest, if so, at what rate and for what period? OPP
3) Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties? OPD
4) Whether the defendant is entitled to counter claim of Rs. 7,81,937/ ? OPD
5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed? OPP Suit no. 387/09 Page 7/20
6) Whether the defendant is entitled for the relief claimed? OPD
7) Relief.
8 In order to prove his case plaintiff examined Sh. Atul Kumar Pasrich as PW1 who reiterated the averments made in the plaint in his examination in chief Ex. PW1/X. He exhibited the resolution dated 24.03.2008 and 25.11.2009 Ex. PW1/1 & 2, certified copy of the criminal complaint Under Section 138 of N. I. Act Ex. PW1/3, certified copy of the statement of AR of the plaintiff in the said complaint Ex. PW1/4, copy of unpaid invoices Ex. PW1/5 to Ex. PW1/8, statement of account maintained by the plaintiff Ex. PW1/9, copy of legal notice Ex. PW1/10, postal receipt, speed post and A.D Card Ex. PW1/11 to 13, courier receipt Ex. PW1/14, 15 & 16, reply to the legal notice Ex. PW1/17 and the suit is Ex. PW1/18. 9 In order to answer the claim of the plaintiff, defendant examined Sh. Kesar Singh as DW1 who reiterated the averments made in the written statement in his examination in chief. He exhibited the certified copy of incorporation certificate of defendant no.1 Ex. DW1/1, copy of the resolution dated 28.11.2008 Ex. DW1/2, reply dated 23.01.2008 Ex. DW1/3, EMail exchanged between the parties is Ex. DW1/4 to 8, debit note raised by defendant no. 1 dated 19.07.2005 Ex. DW1/9, extract of statement of account for the month of October Suit no. 387/09 Page 8/20 2005 issued by the Banker of the defendant Ex. DW1/10. 10 I have heard both the Ld. Counsels for the parties and perused the pleadings, evidence and other material placed on record. My issue wise findings is as under:
1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of recovery of Rs. 4,48,727/? OPP
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the interest, if so, at what rate and for what period? OPP 11 Issue no. 1& 2 are taken together as they are interconnected. Plaintiff has taken a plea that it has been carrying on business of freight forwarding. Defendant had booked various shipment for which plaintiff raised various invoices amounting to Rs. 11,95,196/ in the year 1995. The defendant paid a sum of Rs. 9,41,025/, however, it has not paid the amount against invoices no. 000050A dated 28.05.2005 for Rs. 1,53,919/, BOM/SF/040/05 dated 29.04.2005 for Rs. 39,848/, 000136 dated 04.08.2005 for Rs. 5,8,149/ & 000156 dated 22.08.2005 for Rs. 892/, despite the service of the legal notice. Therefore defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 2,52,808/ alongwith interest @ 2.5% per mensum.
On the other hand defendants have taken a plea that the claim of the plaintiff is totally baseless as defendant no. 1 made payment against the invoice no. 000050A dated 28.05.2005 of Rs. Suit no. 387/09 Page 9/20 1,53,919/. They have further taken a plea that defendant no. 1 had made excess payment of Rs. 89,290/ and same has been admitted by the plaintiff. As per the defendant, plaintiff has raised inflated and ex aggretted bills which was accepted by its AR. Thus, they received an excess payment of Rs. 1,65,149/.
12 A perusal of the pleadings and evidence led on record shows that defendant has put forth a defence that plaintiff raised inflated bills. It has further pleaded in Para 6 of the written statement that defendant no. 1 has made payment against invoice no. 00050A dated 28.05.2005 amounting to Rs. 1,53,919/ . It has further pleaded that while making payment of said bill, the defendant no. 1 had made excess payment of Rs. 89,290/ and said fact has been admitted by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not filed replication to the written statement, thus the said plea taken by the defendant has not been controverted by the plaintiff.
In order to prove its case, plaintiff examined Sh. Atul Kumar Pasrich as PW1. During his crossexamination, PW1 deposed that he is not aware if the defendant was communicating the plaintiff through Email. He further stated that earlier Mr. P.R. Santosh was working as salesman with the plaintiff in JanuaryFebruary 2006. He is not aware if Mr. P.R. Santosh and Mr. Girish Joshi were communicating with the defendant through Email. He denied that plaintiff raised exaggerated inflated bills against the defendant. He Suit no. 387/09 Page 10/20 admitted that he is not aware if defendant by way of Email dated 01.06.2005 communicated to the plaintiff about the discrepancies and inflated bills. He further stated that he is not aware if Mr. P.R. Santosh made the communication vide Email dated 06.06.2005 where he admitted the discrepancies in their bills. He denied that payment against bill Ex. PW1/5 was made by the defendant by cheque bearing No. 049785 dated 29.10.2005 drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Safdurjung Development Enclave, Delhi. He denied that Mr. P.R. Santosh vide his communication dated 09.09.2005 admitted that plaintiff have received Rs. 89,290/ in excess out of bill No. 58.
In order to prove it plea, defendant examined Sh. Kesar Singh as DW1. In Para 10 of his examination in chief, DW1 deposed that " on 06.06.2005 Mr. Santosh had admitted that "Bill No. 00050A for GPP 1858, Duty Charge should have been for GBP 780". He further deposed in the same Para that "vide communication dated 09.09.2005, plaintiff admitted that Bill No. 050A, one of the disputed bill for Rs. 1,53,919/ was in fact raised and the amount of Rs. 89,290/ was wrongly charged and accordingly, credit of said amount was given. Defendant no. 1 had made the entire payment of Rs. 1,53,919/ vide cheque to plaintiff against the said bill, in the regular course of business on 29.10.2005".
13 DW1 has been thoroughly examined by the plaintiff. During crossexamination, DW1 has admitted that except bill no. Suit no. 387/09 Page 11/20 005A in Ex. DW1/6 no bill pertains to the present suit. He denied that a sum of Rs. 1,53,919/ was not paid against the bill No. 000050A dated 28.05.2005 but it was against bill No. A1/CAN/0744 dated 01.08.2005 for Rs. 1,57,009/ minus a sum of Rs. 3085/ as a TDS which comes to Rs.1,53,919/.
14 It is the consistent stand of the defendant that it paid a sum of Rs. 1,53,919/ against the invoice No. 000050A Ex. PW1/5 vide cheque no. 049785 dated 29.10.2005 drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Safdurjung Development Enclave, Delhi. The plaintiff has not controverted the said plea as no replication has been filed by the plaintiff. PW1 during crossexamination has denied that no such payment was made by the defendant. However, during cross examination of DW1 he was suggested that an amount of Rs. 1,53,919/ was not paid by the defendant against the bill No. 000050A but against the bill No. AI/CAN/0744. The implication of the said suggestion is that the plaintiff has admitted that defendant paid an amount of Rs. 1,53,919/ vide said cheque but taken a stand that the same was paid against some other bill. Therefore, it is incumbent for the plaintiff to prove the said fact that the aforesaid amount was paid by the defendant towards some other bill. The plaintiff has not made a whisper in the entire plaint about the said bill. The plaintiff has also not placed on record the statement of account which could have shown whether any such bill was ever raised by the plaintiff against the Suit no. 387/09 Page 12/20 defendant or not. Plaintiff has not placed any material on record to show that Bill No. AI/CAN/0744. for Rs. 1,57,009/ was ever raised by the plaintiff. In the absence of any material on record, to the contrary, I am of the considered view that the defendant has successfully proved on record that it paid Rs. 1,53,919/ vide cheque against bill No. 000050A Ex. PW1/5.
The defendant has taken a plea that various communication has taken place between plaintiff and the defendant. Vide Email dated 01.06.2005 the defendant sought clarifications regarding JJ 87 bill No. 00050A. The said Email has been replied by the AR of the defendant on 06.06.2005. Vide email Ex. DW1/7 and he clarified that JJ 87 bill No. 00050A for GBP.1858 Duty Charges:It should be GBP.780. The said clarification sent by the AR of the plaintiff has not been disputed by the plaintiff rather they have admitted the same during the crossexamination of DW1. In view of the said clarification, the amount of the bill No. 000050A Ex. PW1/5 should have been Rs. 64,729/, however, it was raised for Rs. 1,53,919/ which was duly paid by the defendant through cheque. Thus plaintiff received excess amount of Rs. 89290/ against bill No. 000050A Ex. PW1/5 which should have been adjusted against the other invoices raised by the plaintiff. The exchange of email between plaintiff and the defendant further shows that the plaintiff has been raising inflated bills time and again and received excess amount from Suit no. 387/09 Page 13/20 the plaintiff.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the plaintiff has failed to prove on record that it is entitle to recover Rs. 2,52,808/ towards the principle amount from the defendants. Once the plaintiff is not entitled for the principle amount, it is also not entitled to recover interest thereupon from the defendants. The plaintiff has thus failed to discharge the onus of Issue no. 1& 2, same are accordingly decided against the plaintiff. 15 Issue No. 3 Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties?
OPD The onus to prove this issue is upon the defendant. In the plaint, plaintiff has described the defendant as partnership firm which plea has been controverted by the defendant in Para 2 of the preliminary objection of the written statement they are the Director of defendant no. 1. As per the defendant, defendant no. 1is a company and defendant no. 2& 3 are its Director who are not personally liable to the company thus could not have been sued.
In order to prove the said fact, defendant examined Sh. Kesar Singh as DW1. In para 2 of his examination in chief, he deposed that defendant no. 1 is a company duly incorporated under Companies Act, 1956 having its Registered office at 46A, PocketA, Mayur Vihar, PhaseII, Delhi92. He placed on record copy of incorporation Suit no. 387/09 Page 14/20 certificate of defendant no. 1 as Ex. DW1/1. The above testimony of DW1 has not been challenged by the plaintiff in his crossexamination and same remained unchallenged thus defendants have proved on record that defendant no. 1 is not a partnership firm but a Company duly incorporated under Companies Act, 1956.
16 It is a well settled law that a company has a separate legal entity in the eyes of law. The Director of the companies have been described as agents of the company, they perform acts and duties of the company. They are the agents to the extent that they have been authorized to perform certain act on behalf of the company, however, they can not be personally held liable for the liability of the company unless specifically provided.
In the instant case, defendant no. 1 has been availing the services of plaintiff. No specific guarantee of payment was given by defendant no. 2 & 3 to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also not attributed any specific role to defendant no. 2 & 3 therefore they can not be fastened with any liability. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in 'Overseas Bank Vs. R.M. Market Services Ltd. reported as AIR 2002, Delhi 343' has held that "Defendant no. 4 & 6 are also impleaded on the ground that they were director of defendant no. 1, however, these defendant do not given any personal guarantee for due payment of law and simply because they were the director of Suit no. 387/09 Page 15/20 defendant no. 1 they can not be fasten with liability as defendant no. 1 which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act has a separate legal entity".
Similarly in the instant case, defendant no. 2 & 3 have not given any personal guarantee for timely payment on behalf of defendant no. 1. They have been impleaded only because they are the director of defendant no. 1.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that defendant no. 2& 3 have been unnecessary impleaded as defendant in the present suit and they can not be made liable to pay on behalf of defendant no. 1. The defendant has thus successfully discharge the onus of Issue no. 3, same is accordingly decided in favour of the defendant.
17 Issue No. 4 Whether the defendant is entitled to counter claim of Rs. 7,81,937/ ? OPD The onus to prove this issue is upon the defendant. Defendants have taken a plea that the plaintiff unauthorizedly stuffed food items in the FCL Container of defendant no. 1 due to the said act, Harbour Authority at UK withheld the said container for five weeks and the delivery to the ultimate customer was delayed who deducted a sum of Rs. 3,23,642/ from the bill issued by defendant no. 1. Apart from that defendant no. 1 also suffered loss of reputation. The Suit no. 387/09 Page 16/20 defendant further taken a plea that due to the negligence of the plaintiff, the consignment no. JJ85 was delayed in Mumbai at Harbor till 21.03.2004 and defendant no. 1 suffered loss of Rs. 2,40,000/ as customer deducted bill of defendant no. 1 @ 5% for every week delay. The plaintiff was negligent in claiming duty drawback in giving two shipment no. JJ105 & JJ106 thereby caused loss to defendant no. 1 of Rs. 78,000/. The defendant no. 1 has also claimed Rs. 4 lacs towards the loss of reputation and business.
The plaintiff filed written statement to the counter claim and controverted the above claim raised by defendant no. 1. As per the plaintiff, defendant no. 1 has not suffered any loss whatsoever.
In order to prove its case, defendant no. 1 examined Sh. Kesar Singh as DW1 who reiterated the said fact in his examination in chief. During crossexamination, DW1 deposed that he has not filed any document on record to show that the defendant has suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 4 lacs on account of loss of reputation and business as mentioned in column 4 of Para 7 of the counter claim.
To answer the claim of the defendant, plaintiff examined Sh. Atul Kumar Pasrich as PW1. During crossexamination, PW1 denied that plaintiff had provided deficient services to the defendant. He has stated that he is not aware if the plaintiff filled food items in the consignment of the defendant containing shoes which was withheld by UK Custom Authority for which defendants suffered loss to the tune of Suit no. 387/09 Page 17/20 Rs. 3,23,644/. He has also denied that plaintiff delayed another consignment JJ85 for three weeks in Bombay which caused loss to the tune of RS. 2,40,000/. He also denied that in pursuance of shipment JJ106 they submitted wrong duty drawback which caused loss to the defendant to the tune of Rs. 78,000/.
18 A careful examination of the pleading and the evidence placed on record shows that except the bare statement of DW1, defendant no. 1 has not placed any material on record which can show or suggest that that it sustained any loss due to the negligence of the plaintiff. The defendant has pleaded that the plaintiff stuffed food items in the consignment due to which Harbor Authority at UK withheld the consignment for five weeks for which its customer deducted a sum of Rs. 3,23,642/ from the bill, however, defendant has neither placed any such bill raised by it against such customer nor placed any other document in order to substantiate its claim. In the absence of any such proof the plea of the defendant that its buyer deducted Rs. 3,23,642/ form its bills the said plea of the defendant no. 1 remained unsubstantiated and unproved.
Similarly the defendant has not produced any document or any other material to substantiate the fact that the consignment No. JJ85 was delayed at Mumbai Harbor for two weeks due to which defendant no. 1sustained loss of Rs. 2,40,000/. The defendant has also not produced any material on the basis of which it can be said that it Suit no. 387/09 Page 18/20 sustained any loss to the tune of Rs. 78,000/ due to the act of the plaintiff in claiming duty drawback. The defendant has also not placed any material on record that it suffered any loss of reputation in his business due to the act of the plaintiff to the tune of Rs. 4 lacs. DW1 during crossexamination himself stated that they have not filed any document on record to show that defendant had suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 4 lacs on account of loss of reputation. The defendant has also not examined any other witness or its customer who could have proved that defendant had suffered any loss of reputation due to the negligent act of the plaintiff.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the defendant has failed to prove on record that it sustained any loss due to the act and omission of the plaintiff. The defendant has thus failed to prove on record that it is entitle fo the amount of Rs. 7,81,937/ as claimed by way of counter claim. The defendant has failed to discharge the onus of Issue no. 4, same is accordingly decided against the defendant.
19 Issue No. 5 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed? OPP In view of my findings on Issue no. 1& 2 the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief. The plaintiff has thus failed to discharge the onus of Issue no. 5, same is accordingly decided against the plaintiff. Suit no. 387/09 Page 19/20 20 Issue No. 6 Whether the defendant is entitled for the relief claimed? OPD In view of my findings on Issue no. 4, defendant is not entitled for any relief. The defendant has thus failed to discharge the onus of Issue no. 6, same is accordingly decided against the defendant.
Relief In view of the above, the suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 4,48,752/ against the defendant is dismissed. The counter claim filed by defendant no. 1 against the plaintiff is also dismissed. Both the parties shall bear their cost respectively. Decree sheet be accordingly prepared. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court ( PITAMBER DUTT)
th
10 May, 2011 Additional District Judge
Delhi
Suit no. 387/09 Page 20/20
Suit no. 387/09 Page 21/20