Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Mrs. Anita Gupta Sole Proprietor Of vs Mr. Ahmad Sole Proprietor on 9 June, 2022

 IN THE COURT OF MS. DEEKSHA RAO: CIVIL JUDGE-04:
  CENTRAL DISTRICT: TIS HAZARI COURT: NEW DELHI

Case No. 199/17

IN THE MATTER OF

Mrs. Anita Gupta Sole Proprietor of
M/s Garg Enterprises,
Office at: 63, 3rd Floor,
G.B. Road, Delhi-110006.
Through Sh. Ved Parkesh Gupta,
Authorised Representative                        ...   Plaintiff

                              Versus

Mr. Ahmad Sole Proprietor,
M/s. Abdul Plastic Machinery,
I-233, Sector-2, DSIDC,
Industrial Area, Bawana,
Delhi-110039.                                   ...      Defendant

Date of filing                            : 23.01.2017
Date of Institution                       : 24.01.2017
Date of pronouncing judgment              : 09.06.2022


    SUIT UNDER ORDER XXXVII CPC FOR RECOVERY
OF RS.1,00,000/- (RUPEES ONE LAKH ONLY) ALONGWITH
PENDENTE LITE AND FUTURE INTEREST.

ORDER/JUDGMENT
1.

This is a suit under Order XXXVII CPC for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith pendente lite and future interest filed by the plaintiff.

Anita Gupta v. Ahmad Page no. 1 of 3

2. Factual matrix of the case, as culled out from a bare perusal of the plaint is as under:-

The plaintiff is the proprietorship concern under the name and style of M/s Garg Enterprises, and the defendant is the sole proprietor of the proprietorship concern i.e. M/s Abdul Plastic Machinery. In the year 2014, the officials of the defendant no.1 visited the office of the plaintiff and during the course of deal the defendant booked various goods of different size and quality and the plaintiff delivered those goods in safe and sound condition at the required destination. The account between the parties was open, current and running account. As per the accounts maintained by the plaintiff, till 31.12.2015 the defendants are required to pay a sum of Rs. 1,01,667/- towards the goods purchased by the defendant from the plaintiff company.

The defendants in acknowledgement of their liability gave a cheque of Rs.1,00,000/- dated 20.10.2015 bearing no. 080235 drawn on ICICI Bank, Mamram Magic Mall, Sector-24, Rohini, New Delhi-110085 in favour of the plaintiff and assured the plaintiff that the cheque would be duly honoured on presentation. However, the same was returned with the remarks 'funds insufficient'. The plaintiff requested the defendants to pay the outstanding amount but the defendants avoided the same on one pretext or the other and did not pay any heed to it. The plaintiff thereafter, sent a legal notice dated 17.02.2016. The defendant failed to discharge his liability, hence, the present suit.

Anita Gupta v. Ahmad Page no. 2 of 3

3. Upon service of summons the defendant failed to enter appearance within stipulated period. In view of the same, the contents of the plaint are deemed to have been accepted by the defendant as per the provisions of order 37 CPC. Original cheque no.080235 dated 20.10.2015 alongwith bank memo dated 19.01.2016, legal notice dated 17.02.2016 and postal receipts have been placed on record.

4. Accordingly, a decree of Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 6% per annum till the date of decree alongwith costs of the suit is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

5. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.

6. File be consigned to the record room after necessary Digitally signed by compliance. DEEKSHA DEEKSHA RAO RAO Date: 2022.06.09 17:38:58 +0530 (Deeksha Rao) CJ-04, Central,THC/Delhi Announced in the open Court on this 9th day of June 2022 This judgment consists of 3 signed pages.

Anita Gupta v. Ahmad                                                          Page no. 3 of 3