Delhi District Court
Shyam Sunder Gupta vs Lokeshwar Dutt on 3 August, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM RENT
CONTROLLER (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by : Sh. Himanshu Raman Singh
Civil Suit No. 724/2020
CNR No. DLWT03-001568-2020
&
Counter Claim No. 11/21
CNR No. DLWT03-002439-2021
Shyam Sunder Gupta,
Proprietor Of M/S Premier Oil Distributors,
Having Its Office At:-
84/13, Road No. 3,
Mundka Industrial Area,
Near Mundka Industrial
Area Metro Station, Delhi-110041.
Also At:
WZ-14a, Manohar Park Rohtak Road,
East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, Delhi 110026
.... Plaintiff / Respondent
Versus
Mr. Lokeshwar Dutt,
Proprietor Of Shiv Shakti Sales Corporation
X-15, A, Oldanpur, Navin Shahdara,
Shahdara, Delhi 110032.
....Defendant / Counter-Claimant
Date of Filing : 10.09.2020
Date of Judgment : 03.08.2024
Decision : Dismissed
Civil Suit No. 724/20 Shyam Sunder Gupta Vs. Lokeshwar Dutt
&
Counter Claim No. 11/21 Lokeshwar Dutt Vs. Shyam Sunder Gupta Page 1 of 37
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall adjudicate vide a common judgment Suit bearing CS No. 724/20 and Counter Claim No. 11/21 as they have interwoven facts and pleadings.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE SUIT
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts as narrated by the plaintiff are that the suit has been instituted by the plaintiff seeking recovery of an amount of Rs. 64,640/-, (principal amount being Rs. 56,702/- along with interest @ 24% per annum amounting to Rs 7,938/- from 17.06.2019 to 16.01.2020).
3. It has been stated that the plaintiff is sole proprietor of the proprietorship firm M/s Premier Oil Distributors and is a market leader in wholesale and trade of wide amount of Liquid Paraffin, Base Oil, Sewing Machine Oil and White Oil etc. throughout India. It has been stated that the products of plaintiff are manufactured with high-grade material as per the satisfaction of his customers.
4. It has been stated that the defendant (Counter-claimant) is the proprietor of the proprietorship firm M/s Shiv Shakti Sales Corporation and is engaged in the business of sale and purchase of Lubricant Oil, Engine Oil, Hydraulic Oil, Light Liquid Paraffin (White Oil), Industrial Oil etc. and for the business requirements have been purchasing Light Liquid Paraffin (White Oil) from Civil Suit No. 724/20 Shyam Sunder Gupta Vs. Lokeshwar Dutt & Counter Claim No. 11/21 Lokeshwar Dutt Vs. Shyam Sunder Gupta Page 2 of 37 plaintiff from time to time and used to keep a running account in the name of the defendant.
5. It has been stated that while maintaining running account of defendant in it's books of accounts, the plaintiff came to know that a total amount Rs. 56,702/- became due and outstanding and payable to plaintiff. It has been stated that the defendant, despite persistent, repeated demands, several oral, written communications and repeated attempts by plaintiff through various modes, has failed to pay the amount of Rs. 56,702/- alongwith interest.
6. It has been stated that the plaintiff was left with no other alternative except to issue a legal notice to the defendant on 13.02.2020 calling upon to make the payment of Rs. 64,640/-, being the principal amount of Rs. 56,702/- along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum amounting to Rs. 7,938/- from 17.06.2019 to 16.01.2020, including future interest within 7 days from the date of receipt of notice. It has been stated that the aforesaid notice was mistakenly sent in the name of Ms. Anjali Kalra instead of Mr. Lokeshwar Dutt. It has been stated in spite of the service of the notice, the defendant has failed to make the payment of the amount to the plaintiff within seven days of the receipt of the said notice.
WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE DEFENDANT
7. It has been averred that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff in west district, whereas, the jurisdiction to file the present suit falls in Shahdara district, as the defendant resides in the jurisdiction of Civil Suit No. 724/20 Shyam Sunder Gupta Vs. Lokeshwar Dutt & Counter Claim No. 11/21 Lokeshwar Dutt Vs. Shyam Sunder Gupta Page 3 of 37 Karkardooma Court.
8. It has been averred that the present suit has been filed on the basis of invoices and ledger account maintained by plaintiff of the defendant's firm and it was alleged by the plaintiff that there are pending dues in the ledger account of the plaintiff against the defendant. The said ledger account as well as invoices filed alongwith plaint are not signed or counter signed by any of the parties; therefore, these documents can't be the basis of filing a recovery suit. It has been averred that the invoices attached with the plaint does not contain any signature of the defendant, however every time when the goods have been supplied to the defendant, signature of the defendant have been taken as proof of delivery, which have not been filed by the plaintiff deliberately.
9. It has been stated that the goods in respect of invoice no. GST/835 amounting Rs.88,217/- and GST/841 amounting Rs.88217/- had never issued /supplied to the defendant and the said invoices are false and the same are being forged by the plaintiff for misappropriation of Rs.1,11,440/, which was paid by the defendant as advance payment of future booking, but when there were complaints in material, said advance bookings was cancelled by the defendant. It has been averred that the plaintiff has concealed the aforesaid facts from this Court and therefore, the present suit is liable to be rejected for concealment and forgery and further Civil Suit No. 724/20 Shyam Sunder Gupta Vs. Lokeshwar Dutt & Counter Claim No. 11/21 Lokeshwar Dutt Vs. Shyam Sunder Gupta Page 4 of 37 proceeding under section 340 Cr.P.C. should also be initiated against the plaintiff for perjury for filing false documents.
10. It has been stated that the defendant came in contact with plaintiff through Sh. Satbir Bansal and started doing business in the month of January 2019. The defendant had placed various purchase orders telephonically for different kind of oil products and material as per business requirement and made payment through bank transfer in the bank account of plaintiff. It has been averred that the defendant had purchased goods and material from the plaintiff and made payment of the same. As the plaintiff had requested to place advance order, so the goods supply could be on time, therefore, the defendant had also placed advance booking with the plaintiff against which payments of Rs.1,11,440/- have been made by the defendant in bank account of the plaintiff. It has been averred that after use of such products supplied by the plaintiff, there were several complaints in respect of its quality therefore, in the month of April 2019 defendant contacted the plaintiff and requested for return of product and cancelled the advance booking made for future supply. The plaintiff had refused to return the left over goods but promised to return Rs.1,11,440/- of advance booking within 3 months. Even after repeated demand the plaintiff has failed to return the advance amount of Rs.1,11,440/- on the pretext that he is running short of funds and further for the sake of covid-19 restriction and business losses. The plaintiff had not returned the said amount till date.
Civil Suit No. 724/20 Shyam Sunder Gupta Vs. Lokeshwar Dutt & Counter Claim No. 11/21 Lokeshwar Dutt Vs. Shyam Sunder Gupta Page 5 of 37
11. It has been denied that Rs.56,702/- are due and payable by the defendant. It is stated that the plaintiff had manipulated the ledger account as it is in his sole access and this is under his power to change the data as per his convenience.
12. It has been stated that receipt of the said notice itself shows that the notice was sent to some Anjali Kalra and not to the defendant and further no tracking report has been filed. It is submitted that the said legal notice is yet another attempt of cheating and perjury with the court on part of the plaintiff.
BRIEF FACTS STATED IN THE COUNTER-CLAIM
13. It has been stated that the counter claimant is proprietor of M/s Shiv Shakti Sales Corporation. It has been stated by the Counter Claimant (defendant) that the counter claimant is a renowned and reputed firm in the business of lubricating oil supply and has an established presence in the business from past many years. It has been stated that the Plaintiff/respondent in the month of January 2019 through Sh. Satbir Bansal had approached Counter Claimant for sale of its products and made various assertions regarding the business opportunity.
14. It has been stated that in terms of the specific understanding arrived between the parties, Counter Claimant had started business with Civil Suit No. 724/20 Shyam Sunder Gupta Vs. Lokeshwar Dutt & Counter Claim No. 11/21 Lokeshwar Dutt Vs. Shyam Sunder Gupta Page 6 of 37 Plaintiff/Respondent, for supply of its products and payment of the bills were to be made through cheque and RTGS in the bank account of the Plaintiff/Respondent. Accordingly, the orders were placed before Plaintiff/Respondent and the same were supplied vide its invoice No. 771,773,783, 788, 795, 796, 804, 811, 828. Counter Claimant had made payments as per agreed terms with the Plaintiff/Respondent.
15. It has been stated that Counter Claimant had placed some advance order with the Plaintiff/Respondent against which advance payment of Rs.1,11,440 was transferred in the bank account of the Plaintiff. It has been stated that the customers started complaining for poor quality of the product therefore, counter claimant had contacted the plaintiff and asked them to replace/return the low-quality products and supply good quality product as agreed between the parties. Upon such request the plaintiff had refused to return/replace the poor- quality product, therefore, the counter claimant had requested the plaintiff to stop future supply and return payment made against advance bookings.
16. It has been stated that the counter claimant since June 2019 is making repeated request to the plaintiff for return of the said advance amount of Rs 1,11,440/- but the plaintiff on one pretext or the other had delayed the payment. Time and again the plaintiff had given false assurances of payment on the pretext of loss in business Civil Suit No. 724/20 Shyam Sunder Gupta Vs. Lokeshwar Dutt & Counter Claim No. 11/21 Lokeshwar Dutt Vs. Shyam Sunder Gupta Page 7 of 37 and covid-19 pandemic situations.
17. It has been stated that the Counter Claimant has received a court notice of the suit bearing no. 724/2020 and it was an utter shock to the Counter Claimant that the plaintiff has filed a recovery suit on the basis of false facts and documents. The plaintiff / respondent has filed suit (724/20) just to evacuate him from his legal liability for payment of Rs.1,11,440/- and to extort further money from the Counter Claimant in the garb of a concocted story for recovery of dues.
18. It has been stated that the goods in respect of alleged invoice no.
GST/835 amounting Rs.88,217/- and GST/841 amounting Rs.88217/- had never issued /supplied to the Counter Claimant. The said invoices are false and the same are being forged by the plaintiff for misappropriation of Rs.1,11,440/, which was paid by the counter claimant as advance payment of future booking, but when there were complaints in material, said advance bookings was cancelled by the counter claimant.
19. It has been stated that counter claim has been filed for recovery of money against the plaintiff/respondent in the sum of Rs.1,67,159/- (Rupees One Sixty Seven Thousand One Hundred Fifty Nine Rupees only) ( Rs.1,11,440/- Principal amount Rs. 55717 as interest till August 2021) along with pendente lite and future interest at the Civil Suit No. 724/20 Shyam Sunder Gupta Vs. Lokeshwar Dutt & Counter Claim No. 11/21 Lokeshwar Dutt Vs. Shyam Sunder Gupta Page 8 of 37 rate of 24% per annum from the date of invoice till its realization.
WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF / RESPONDENT IN THE COUNTER CLAIM
20. It has been averred that the counter claim filed by the counter-
claimant / defendant is barred by Order 8 Rule 6A of CPC. It has been averred that the counter claim is nothing but has been filed just to harass and indulge the plaintiff / respondent in a malicious proceedings. It has been averred that the counter-claimant / defendant has falsely implicate the plaintiff / respondent because of the previous grudge and enmity existing between the parties.
21. It has been further averred that the counter-claimant has credited and debited the account of the plaintiff as per his wrong intention and convenience in order to show outstanding liability and the invoices and ledger / statement of account filed by the counter claimant - defendant have also not been certified as per the provisions of Indian Evidence Act.
22. It has been averred that the plaintiff / respondent was dealing with the defendant / counter-claimant on a credit basis and the payment of Rs. 56,702/- along with interest is still pending despite multiple oral and written communication. It has been averred that the plaintiff has not received any advance booking amount at any point of time. It Civil Suit No. 724/20 Shyam Sunder Gupta Vs. Lokeshwar Dutt & Counter Claim No. 11/21 Lokeshwar Dutt Vs. Shyam Sunder Gupta Page 9 of 37 has been averred that as per the defendant's submissions in his WS (in the main suit), the payment was made by him in the month of May 2019 after requesting for return of the product and cancellation of future supplied which itself shows that the payment for the goods paid was not paid as an advance. It has been averred that the defendant / counter claimant himself admitted the invoices bearing no. 771,773, 783, 788, 795, 796, 804, 811 & 828.
23. It has been averred that the counter-claim is nothing but is an abuse of process of law and is liable to be dismissed as the defendant / counter-claimant has not approached this Court with clean hands.
ISSUES:
24. From the pleadings, following issues were framed on 15.03.2022 in the Suit No. 724/20 :-
1. Whether the defendant are liable to pay Rs. 56,702/- to the plaintiff? OPP
2. Whether the defendant are liable to make payment of pendent-
elite and future interest? If yes, then at what rate and for which period? OPP
3. Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present matter ? OPD
4. Relief.
25. From the pleadings, following issues were framed on 15.03.2022 in Civil Suit No. 724/20 Shyam Sunder Gupta Vs. Lokeshwar Dutt & Counter Claim No. 11/21 Lokeshwar Dutt Vs. Shyam Sunder Gupta Page 10 of 37 the Counter Claim no. 11/21 :-
1. Whether the respondent / non-counter claimant (plaintiff in the main suit) is liable to pay Rs. 1,67,159/- to the counter - claimant (defendant in the main suit? OP Counter-Claimant
2. Whether the respondent / non - counter claimant (plaintiff in the main suit) is liable to make payment of pendent elite and future interest? If yes, that at what rate and for which period? OP Counter-claimant
3. Relief.
EVIDENCE LED IN THE MAIN SUIT NO. 724/20
26. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff Shyam Sunder Gupta examined himself as PW-1, who filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW-1/A. He has relied upon the following documents:-
Ex.PW1/1 Digital copy of invoices (colly) along with Certificate under Section 65-B of Evidence Act Ex.PW1/2 Copy of Ledger Account Ex.PW1/3 Certificate under Section 65-B of Evidence Act Ex.PW1/4 Office copy of Legal Notice Ex.PW1/5 Original postal receipt Ex.PW1/6 Printout of GST return of defendant Ex.PW1/7 Certificate under section 65-B of Evidence Act Civil Suit No. 724/20 Shyam Sunder Gupta Vs. Lokeshwar Dutt & Counter Claim No. 11/21 Lokeshwar Dutt Vs. Shyam Sunder Gupta Page 11 of 37 Mark-C Certified Balance Sheet (Copy)
27. PW1 was cross-examined at length by the Counsel for the defendant.
Thereafter, the plaintiff evidence was closed on 10.08.2023.
28. In order to prove his case, the defendant Lokeshwar Dutt examined himself as DW-1, who filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW-1/A. He has relied upon the following documents:-
Ex.DW1/1 Computerized copy of ledger account Ex.DW1/2 Copy of Ledger Account
29. DW1 was cross-examined at length by the Counsel for the plaintiff.
Thereafter, the defendant evidence was closed on 31.08.2023.
EVIDENCE LED IN THE COUNTER CLAIM
30. In order to prove his claim, the counter-claimant Lokeshwar Dutt examined himself as PW1, who filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW-1/A. He has relied upon the following documents:-
Ex.PW1/1 Copy of GST Certificate and certificate under (CC) Section 65 B of Evidence Act Ex.PW1/2 Copy of Aadhar card (OSR) (CC) Ex.PW1/3 Ledger account along with certificate under (CC) Civil Suit No. 724/20 Shyam Sunder Gupta Vs. Lokeshwar Dutt & Counter Claim No. 11/21 Lokeshwar Dutt Vs. Shyam Sunder Gupta Page 12 of 37 Section 65 B of Evidence Act Ex.PW1/4 Bills and invoices received from plaintiff (OSR) (CC) Ex.PW1/5 Certificate under Section 65 B of Evidence Act (CC)
31. In order to prove his case, the respondent examined himself as RW1 who filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.RW-1/A. He has relied upon the following documents:-
Ex.RW1/1 Printout of ledger account Mark A Certificate under Section 65 B of Evidence Act was exhibited as Ex.RW1/2, however being photocopy, same was de-exhibited.
Mark B Bill and invoices from Page No. 15 to 24 were exhibited as Ex.RW1/3, however being photocopy, same were de-exhibited.
Mark C Copy of GST computation from 01.01.2019 tp 31.12.2019 has been exhibited as Ex.RW1/4, however being photocopy, same was de-exhibited.
32. I have heard the final arguments at length and gone through the record carefully.
ISSUE WISE FINDINGS Issue no. 1 of the main suit and counter claim are taken up together as they are interconnected question of facts and law are involved. Issue no. 1 of the main Suit:-
Civil Suit No. 724/20 Shyam Sunder Gupta Vs. Lokeshwar Dutt & Counter Claim No. 11/21 Lokeshwar Dutt Vs. Shyam Sunder Gupta Page 13 of 37
1. Whether the defendant are liable to pay Rs. 56,702/- to the plaintiff? OPP Issue No. 1 of the counter claim:-
1. Whether the respondent / non-counter claimant (plaintiff in the main suit) is liable to pay Rs. 1,67,159/- to the counter -
claimant (defendant in the main suit? OP Counter-Claimant
33. The burden to prove the first issue was on the plaintiff and the burden to prove first issue of the counterclaim was on the defendant. The burden of proof in civil trial is the obligation on the plaintiff that the plaintiff would adduce evidence that proves his claims against the defendant and is based on preponderance of the probabilities. Under Indian law, until and unless an exception is created by law, the burden of proof lies on the person making any claim or asserting any fact. A person who asserts a particular fact is required to affirmatively establish it. Relevant provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872 dealing with burden of proof are produced as under:-
Burden of proof:-
101. Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.
When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.
102. On whom burden of proof lies.--
Civil Suit No. 724/20 Shyam Sunder Gupta Vs. Lokeshwar Dutt & Counter Claim No. 11/21 Lokeshwar Dutt Vs. Shyam Sunder Gupta Page 14 of 37 The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side.
103. Burden of proof as to particular fact.-
The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person.
106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.--
When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
34. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder V Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple & another, VI(2003)SLT307 observed that whether a civil or a criminal case, the anvil for testing of 'proved', 'disproved' and 'not proved', as defined in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is one and the same. A fact is said to be 'proved' when, if considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of a particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. It was observed in A. Raghavamma & another V Chenchamma & another, AIR 1964 SC 136, there is an essential distinction between burden of proof and onus of proof: burden of proof lies upon a person who has to prove the fact and which never shifts. Onus of proof shifts. Such a shifting of onus is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence. It was observed in Civil Suit No. 724/20 Shyam Sunder Gupta Vs. Lokeshwar Dutt & Counter Claim No. 11/21 Lokeshwar Dutt Vs. Shyam Sunder Gupta Page 15 of 37 Rangammal V Kuppuswami and others, Civil Appeal No 562 of 2003 decided on 13th May, 2011 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that burden of proof lies on the person who first asserts the fact and not on the one who denies that fact to be true. The responsibility of the defendant to prove a fact to be true would start only when the authenticity of the fact is proved by the plaintiff. In Anil Rishi V Gurbaksh Singh, (2006) 5 SCC 558 it has been held that the burden of proving the facts rests on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative issues. This view was also accepted in M/S. Gian Chand & Brothers and Another V Rattan Lal @ Rattan Singh, (2013) SCR 601.
35. It has been contended by Learned counsel for the plaintiff / respondent that the defendant in the suit has filed an uncertified ledger account as Mark-X which is a forged and fabricated document and cannot be read in evidence as no certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act has been produced by him. It is also submitted that the defendant in his counter claim has filed the ledger account along with certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act which is not only in accordance with the Evidence Act but it has also been admitted in his cross-examination that "I do not know to operate; however, I know to see the accounts on computer. My CA Mr. Pradeep Kumar used to operate computer / accounting". It is contended that that the defendant in his cross- examination admitted that the defendant did not file any complaint Civil Suit No. 724/20 Shyam Sunder Gupta Vs. Lokeshwar Dutt & Counter Claim No. 11/21 Lokeshwar Dutt Vs. Shyam Sunder Gupta Page 16 of 37 or case against the plaintiff with respect to the poor quality of goods supplied by the plaintiff. It is contended that the defendant filed the Counter claim only when the plaintiff filed the suit. It is contended that the defendant in the cross-examination stated that he had paid twice the advance payment to the plaintiff till date, but as per the ledger he has claimed Rs. 1,11,440/- which itself shows that the defendant has not come to the Court with clean hands. It is further contended that the invoices Ex. PW-1/1, ledger account Ex. PW-1/2 and GST returns Ex. PW-1/6 are computer generated documents and duly accompanied by certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act.
36. Per contra, it has been contended by the Learned Counsel for the defendant / counter-claimant that all the documents including EX.PW-1/1(colly), EX.PW-1/2 are documents printed from computer by use of printer and in support of the same Certificate under Section 65B of evidence act PW-1/3 has been filed which are not admissible documents as per Indian Evidence Act on the grounds that (i) none of the document is properly stamped and signed by its author. (ii) PW-1 admitted in its cross examination dated 10.08.2023 page no.3 "it is correct that we have prepared tax invoices from the address situated at Mundka and filed the same before this court" however the actual invoices received and filed by the defendant Ex. DW-1/2(colly) are having original logo of the plaintiff on the top and original admitted stamp and signature of the Civil Suit No. 724/20 Shyam Sunder Gupta Vs. Lokeshwar Dutt & Counter Claim No. 11/21 Lokeshwar Dutt Vs. Shyam Sunder Gupta Page 17 of 37 plaintiff at bottom. It is contended that this not only proves that the invoices and the ledger filed by the defendant are altered but also prove that the invoices no. GST/835 amounting Rs.88,217/- and GST/841 amounting Rs.88,217/- are forged and fabricated and the same is after thought of the plaintiff to raise false claim against the defendant. (iii) The original invoices EX.DW-1/2 bears original address of the plaintiff of Punjabi Bagh at the relevant period of time and the duplicate/fabricated invoices bears address of Mundka. It is contended that this fact prove the misrepresentation of facts on part of the plaintiff which is serious offence for which the plaintiff is liable to be prosecuted under section 340 Cr.P.C. (iv) As per section 65B of Indian Evidence Act the certificate should have specific averments in respect of how the documents have been prepared by which computer and printed from which computer alongwith its' name and model and who had got it prepared but in the present case, Ex. PW1/3 has nothing mentioned in it to prove the plaintiffs document.
37. It has been further contended by the Learned Counsel for the defendant / counter-claimant that in the cross examination of PW-1 dated 07.02.2023, PW1 stated that "I do not remember the date, month and year of business with the defendants" which raises question on the credibility of the witness who does not even know the transaction in question and hence cannot be accepted as reliable/credible witness. It has been contended that further in the Civil Suit No. 724/20 Shyam Sunder Gupta Vs. Lokeshwar Dutt & Counter Claim No. 11/21 Lokeshwar Dutt Vs. Shyam Sunder Gupta Page 18 of 37 cross examination, the plaintiff admitted his signature on the invoices filed by the defendant and stamp on it.
38. It has been contended by the Learned Counsel for the defendant / counter-claimant that in the cross examination of PW-1 dated 10.08.2023, PW1 stated that "I do not remember whether original of Mark C is with me or not" thereafter the question regarding CA was put and answer of plaintiff was that "it may be Saurab Garg CA that time" is uncertain which again shows that the plaintiff is totally unaware about the accounts and his son used to access the same as admitted in his evidence in the 6-7 line of the cross examination, " in the year 2019, my son Mr. Prabhat Gupta used to prepare tax invoice Ex.D1/2(colly) through computer". It is contended that Mr. Prabhat Gupta never entered into witness box to prove the invoices and ledger account. Further, in the Cross examination of PW-1 dated 10.08.2023, PW1 stated that "it is correct that Ex.PW1/1(Colly) and Ex. D1/2 are forged and fabricated".
39. It has been further contended by the Learned Counsel for the defendant / counter-claimant that in the counter claim, the plaintiff / respondent who was examined as RW1 on 26.09.2023 stated that "I have prepared the ledger account as well as invoices mark B colly "
whereas in the main suit he stated that the same prepared was by his son Prabhat Gupta. In further cross-examinatioin, he stated that " I cannot tell which invoice made by me and which one is made by my Civil Suit No. 724/20 Shyam Sunder Gupta Vs. Lokeshwar Dutt & Counter Claim No. 11/21 Lokeshwar Dutt Vs. Shyam Sunder Gupta Page 19 of 37 son". In the Cross examination dated 13.03.2024, RW1 stated that "It is correct that invoices PW1/4 are the original invoices however invoices Mark B colly have been printed from my computer which is installed in my Mundka office". It has been contended that in Cross examination of RW-1 dated 13.03.2024, RW1 stated that " it is correct that gst invoices are not accepted by the receiver will reflect on GST portal. It is correct that I have not placed on record any such statement showing whether the invoices are reflecting as rejected/claimed or not". It is contended that the GST as it claimed to be paid by the plaintiff were never claimed against the invoices no. GST/835 amounting Rs.88,217/- and GST/841 amounting Rs.88,217/- as the goods as well as the invoices were never received to the defendant at any point of time.
40. It has been further contended by the Learned Counsel for the defendant / counter-claimant that the plaintiff never denies the payment received from the defendant and the only question was in respect of delivery of goods in respect of invoices no. GST/835 amounting Rs.88,217/- and GST/841 amounting Rs.88,217/- and onus to prove the same was on the plaintiff who failed to prove the same and to show any evidence containing proof of delivery of goods in any manner in respect of said invoices. It has been contended that during the trial the plaintiff/non counter claimant miserably failed to prove its plaint and documents and on the contrary admitted the documents of the defendant/counter claimant Civil Suit No. 724/20 Shyam Sunder Gupta Vs. Lokeshwar Dutt & Counter Claim No. 11/21 Lokeshwar Dutt Vs. Shyam Sunder Gupta Page 20 of 37 to be true and correct further the payment is admitted by invoices as claimed by the plaintiff bearing invoice no. GST/835 amounting Rs.88,217/- and GST/841 amounting Rs.88,217/- have not been proved and positively disproved by the defendant in cross examination.
41. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to recapitulate the law on the subject.
42. Section 34 of the Evidence Act, 1872 deals with relevancy of entries in books of account including those maintained in an electronic form when relevant. It reads as under:-
"34. Entries in the books of account, including those maintained in an electronic form], regularly kept in the course of business, are relevant whenever they refer to a matter into which the court has to inquire but such statements shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any per-son with liability.
Illustration A sues B for Rs. 1,000, and shows entries in his account books showing B to be indebted to him to this amount. The entries are relevant, but are not sufficient, without other evidence, to prove the debt".
43. Section 34, an exception to section 21which provides that a person cannot make evidence for him, provides that entries in books of Civil Suit No. 724/20 Shyam Sunder Gupta Vs. Lokeshwar Dutt & Counter Claim No. 11/21 Lokeshwar Dutt Vs. Shyam Sunder Gupta Page 21 of 37 account including those maintained in an electronic form regularly kept in the course of business, by a person, alive or dead, are relevant, whenever they refer to a matter into which the court has to enquire. It is not sufficient to charge any person with liability unless some independent evidence is given. The evidentiary value of entries of account books depends on corroboration by other evidence despite entries are regularly kept and maintained by writer who has full knowledge, no motive to falsehood, and there is the strongest improbability of untruth. The original entries alone under Sec. 34 would not be sufficient to charge any person with liability. The corroborative evidence must have minimum probative value. This corroborating evidence might be in any form like receipts, vouchers, bills or even oral evidence of witnesses having personal knowledge of the affairs of the transactions. The veracity of accounts books cannot be doubted on ground that day books supporting ledger entries and person who made said entries in ledger books were not produced. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ishwar Dass Jain V Sohan Lal, AIR 2000 SC 426 observed as under:-
"It will be noticed that sanctity is attached in the law of evidence to books of account if the books are indeed "account books" i.e. in original and if they show, on their face, that they are kept in the "regular course of business". Such sanctity, in our opinion, cannot attach to private extracts of alleged account books where the original accounts are not filed into Court. This is because, from the extracts, it cannot be discovered whether the accounts are kept in the regular course of business or if there are any interpolations or whether the interpolations are in a Civil Suit No. 724/20 Shyam Sunder Gupta Vs. Lokeshwar Dutt & Counter Claim No. 11/21 Lokeshwar Dutt Vs. Shyam Sunder Gupta Page 22 of 37 different ink or whether the accounts are in the form of a book with continuous page-numbering. In the recent judgment of this Court in Central Bureau has been laid down that for purposes of Section 34, 'Book' ordinarily means a collection of sheets of paper or other material, blank, written or printed, fastened or bound together so as to form a material whole. Loose sheets of paper or scraps of paper cannot be termed as 'book' for they can be easily detached and replaced. It has also been held that the rationale behind admissibility of parties' books of account as evidence is that the regularity of habit, the difficulty of falsification and the fair certainty of ultimate detection give them in a sufficient degree, a probability of trustworthiness."
44. In Jagdish Kumar V Ram Parkash Aggarwal, RSA No 3794 of 2003 decided by 25th April, 2006 by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana the respondent filed a suit against the appellant for the recovery on plea that the appellant had been purchasing sugar in huge quantity from him and used to make payment regularly but later on failed to do so. The outstanding amount was continuously shown in account books of the respondent. The respondent proved a copy of the ledger being maintained and prepared in ordinary course of his business regularly. The copies of the bills were also proved. The trial Court after relying on provisions of Section 34 of the Evidence Act decreed the suit vide impugned judgment and decree. The appellant filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court. The Hon'ble High Court observed that Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act and illustration clear reflected beyond doubt that the suit cannot be decreed merely on the basis of entries in the account Civil Suit No. 724/20 Shyam Sunder Gupta Vs. Lokeshwar Dutt & Counter Claim No. 11/21 Lokeshwar Dutt Vs. Shyam Sunder Gupta Page 23 of 37 books. The judgments of both the Courts below have been passed against the appellant on basis of entries in account books allegedly maintained by the respondent. The only other evidence was copies of bill books but those were also maintained by the respondent and these evidences at the most amounted to admission in one's own favour. It was observed that the respondent neither proved signatures of the appellant in his account books to prove past dealings nor proved any receipt which might have been obtained from the respondent in token of having received articles. The bill books were also considered to be self-created evidence. The appeal was accepted and the suit of the respondent was ordered to be dismissed. It was observed as under:-
"So far as entries in the account books are concerned, the books may be regularly maintained in the ordinary course of business but the entries in the account books are self- created evidence. The provisions of Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act clearly lay down that these entries may create a presumption, but, these entries alone are not sufficient to hold any person liable".
45. Further relevant provisions of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are as under:-
Section 59: Proof of facts by oral evidence.--All facts, except the contents of documents or electronic records, may be proved by oral evidence.--All facts, except the contents of documents or electronic records, may be proved by oral evidence. Section 61: Proof of contents of documents.--The Civil Suit No. 724/20 Shyam Sunder Gupta Vs. Lokeshwar Dutt & Counter Claim No. 11/21 Lokeshwar Dutt Vs. Shyam Sunder Gupta Page 24 of 37 contents of documents may be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence.
Section 62: Primary evidence.--Primary evidence means the document itself produced for the inspection of the Court.
Explanation 1.--Where a document is executed in several parts, each part is primary evidence of the document;
Where a document is executed in counterpart, each counterpart being executed by one or some of the parties only, each counterpart is primary evidence as against the parties executing it.
Explanation 2.--Where a number of documents are all made by one uniform process, as in the case of printing, lithography, or photography, each is primary evidence of the contents of the rest; but, where they are all copies of a common original, they are not primary evidence of the contents of the original. Illustration A person is shown to have been in possession of a number of placards, all printed at one time from one original. Any one of the placards is primary evidence of the contents of any other, but no one of them is primary evidence of the contents of the original.
46. In Chandi Ram vs. Jamind Kanta Deka, reported in AIR 1952 Assam 92, the Hon'ble Assam High Court held that if a ledger is not supported by any Day-book or Roznama, it would not fulfill the requirement of Section 34 of the Evidence Act and cannot be regarded relevant under that section. In the opinion of the Assam High Court there is no daily opening or closing balance in the ledger accounts which is maintained in some other books and ledger can be prepared at any time. Therefore, it cannot be regarded as relevant.
47. In Hira Meher vs. Birbal Prasad Agarwal, reported in AIR 1958 Civil Suit No. 724/20 Shyam Sunder Gupta Vs. Lokeshwar Dutt & Counter Claim No. 11/21 Lokeshwar Dutt Vs. Shyam Sunder Gupta Page 25 of 37 Orissa 4, the Hon'ble Orissa High Court held that if the plaintiff relies on the entries in his credit ledger which he himself has scribed out, the plaintiff does not assert that the transaction on credit took place actually the credit register cannot be relied upon because there will be no corroboration of the entries made therein.
48. In Sohan Lal vs. Gulab Chand, reported in AIR 1966 Raj. 229, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court held that Bahi Khata is an account book if maintained in regular course of business and entries therein are not admissible if not supported by corresponding entries on Rokam or Nagal Behi.
49. In Zehna Sorabji vs. Mirabella Hoter Col. (Pvt.) Ltd., reported in AIR 1981 Bom 446, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that a ledger by itself cannot be a book of account of the character contemplated by Section 34 of the Evidence Act unless it is corroborated by the entries in the cash-book.
50. In Beni vs. Bisan Dayal, reported in AIR 1925 Nag. 445, the Hon'ble Nagpur High Court held that, the entries in the books of account by itself are not sufficient to charge any person with liability unless there is independent evidence of the transaction to which the entries relate.
51. The proposition laid down in the above referred authorities about the Civil Suit No. 724/20 Shyam Sunder Gupta Vs. Lokeshwar Dutt & Counter Claim No. 11/21 Lokeshwar Dutt Vs. Shyam Sunder Gupta Page 26 of 37 admissibility of ledger without the corroborative evidence being led in support of the entries in the ledger cannot be disputed. It is well settled that a ledger, though an account book, has no evidentiary value unless the entries made therein are proved by independent evidence which, in other words, would mean that there must be corroboration of entries which corroboration can be supplied by proving the transaction or by proving the entries in the Daily cash book or Roznama. Without corroboration, entries in the ledger cannot be brought within the purview of Section 34 of the Evidence Act. In the instant case, it is, therefore, to be seen, whether apart from the entries in the ledger, there was corroborative evidence in support of the entries in the ledger. This matter would largely depend on the facts of each case.
52. In Balmukand vs. Jagan Nath, reported in AIR 1963 Raj. 212, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court that Section 34 of the Evidence Act does not require any particular form of corroborative evidence. Even a witness, in support of entries made in the books of account, would be sufficient compliance with Section 34 of the Evidence Act. In Balmukand (supra), the Rajasthan High Court relied on AIR 1938 All. 353 (Narain Das and others vs. Firm Ghasi Ram Gojar Mal and others), wherein the Allahabad High Court held that a single witness can corroborate the entries made in the books of account.
53. In Gopasunder Sabathao vs. Chunilal, reported in AIR 1955 Orissa Civil Suit No. 724/20 Shyam Sunder Gupta Vs. Lokeshwar Dutt & Counter Claim No. 11/21 Lokeshwar Dutt Vs. Shyam Sunder Gupta Page 27 of 37 6, the Hon'ble Orissa High Court held that the evidence of a party himself was substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 34 of the Evidence Act in so far as corroboration of the entries in the account book were concerned. These authorities do not dispute the proposition of law laid down by the authorities submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant.
54. After scrutinizing the law on the point, the following points emerge:
i) that ledger by itself may not be the proof of transaction and no liability can be fastened on the basis of an entry in the ledger alone unless it is corroborated by some other evidence;
ii) ledger can be taken into consideration and would become relevant u/s 34 of the Evidence Act only when there is corroborative evidence on record in support of the entries made therein or in support of the transaction between the parties;
iii) that what form of evidence is to be led to corroborate the entries in the ledger would largely depend on the facts of each case. If the entries in the ledger are not denied by the defendant, it may not require any corroboration.
55. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff supplied certain goods to the defendant vide invoices, however, the defendant failed to pay the cost of the goods. It is admitted that the defendant had deposited advance sum of Rs. 1,11,440/- with the plaintiff for supply of goods. It is also admitted that the goods were supplied, however, the case of the defendant is that goods were sub-standard and the plaintiff was asked to return the advance amount to which the plaintiff had Civil Suit No. 724/20 Shyam Sunder Gupta Vs. Lokeshwar Dutt & Counter Claim No. 11/21 Lokeshwar Dutt Vs. Shyam Sunder Gupta Page 28 of 37 agreed.
56. The plaintiff filed on record copy of tax invoices Ex. PW-1/1 (Colly). It is the case of the defendant that the plaintiff has failed to place on record any proof of delivery with respect to invoice No. GST/835 dated 25.01.2019 and invoice No. GST/841 dated 28.01.2019 both in the amount of Rs. 88,217/- each. The plaintiff has also relied upon the GST returns Ex. PW-1/6. A perusal of the documents Ex. PW-1/6 shows that there is no mention of GST Invoice no. GST/835 and invoice No. GST/841. A perusal of document Ex. PW-1/2 ledger account shows that there is sale on 25.01.2019 against invoice no. GST/835 and on 28.01.2019 vide invoice No. GST/841.
57. The plaintiff was cross-examined at length. The witness admitted that document Ex. PW-1/2 i.e the ledger account, does not bear his signatures and the same was prepared by him and his employees. PW-1 admitted that he used to get audit of his firm through a Chartered Accountant, however, he cannot tell the name. The witness brought the copy of the certified balance sheet of 31.03.2022 which was marked as Mark-C. The witness in the cross-examination could not tell the name of his Chartered Accountant. The witness could not tell the date of appointment of either Mr. Kuldeep or Mr. Saurabh Garg as his Chartered Accountant. It was also pointed out that there was a cutting at point X on all the bills Ex. DW-1/2, Civil Suit No. 724/20 Shyam Sunder Gupta Vs. Lokeshwar Dutt & Counter Claim No. 11/21 Lokeshwar Dutt Vs. Shyam Sunder Gupta Page 29 of 37 however, the witness stated that he does not know about the same. The witness was confronted with document Ex. PW-1/1 and document Ex. DW-1/2 to which the witness stated that both have different stamp and cutting at point X. The witness also admitted that the logo appeared on Ex. DW-1/2, the same is, however, not present on documents Ex. PW-1/1. It is pertinent to mention here that the logo on the document Ex. PW-1/1 and Ex. DW-1/2 are in different position and it cannot be ruled out that the documents Ex. PW-1/1 might have been prepared at a later stage.
58. The witness admitted that there is no receiving on the documents Ex.
PW-1/1. The witness further admitted that Ex. PW-1/1 and Ex. DW- 1/2 (Colly) are forged and fabricated. He stated that the goods used to be delivered by Tempo, however, he did not have any registration number of the Tempo or its receipt. He denied that the defendant ever informed him about the sub-standard goods and the complaint made by the customers. He admitted that he had prepared fresh invoices and filed the same in the Court. He could not produce the original invoices in the Court. The witness has himself admitted that the invoices relied upon by the plaintiff Ex. PW-1/1 are not the original and true invoices.
59. The defendant examined himself as DW-1 and deposed through his affidavit Ex. DW-1/A that he has been complainant and making request to the plaintiff for return of the amount of Rs. 1,11,440/-
Civil Suit No. 724/20 Shyam Sunder Gupta Vs. Lokeshwar Dutt & Counter Claim No. 11/21 Lokeshwar Dutt Vs. Shyam Sunder Gupta Page 30 of 37 since June, 2019, but the plaintiff has been delaying the payment on one excuse or that other. He deposed that the goods in respect of invoices No. GST/835 and GST/841 were never supplied to the defendant. He was cross-examined at length. A specific question was put to the witness during the cross-examination, as to how he got to know the goods delivered to him were of inferior quality. The witness answered that he came to know about the same from the parties to whom the goods were supplied and the goods were having yellow effect in final products. He admitted that he had never filed any case against the plaintiff nor he has claimed any refund or return against the GST Invoice No. 835 and 841. He further admitted that he did not return the inferior quality goods to the plaintiff. The defendant has failed to lead any evidence to prove that the goods supplied were inferior in quality. The defendant was under
obligation to return the goods immediately if the same were found to be of sub-standard quality, which the defendant has miserably failed to do.
60. The defendant in his counter claim has relied upon copy of GST certificate Ex. PW-1/1 (CC), ledger account Ex. PW-1/3 (CC) and bills and invoices received from the plaintiff Ex. PW-1/4 (CC), inter-alia other documents. The counter claimant did not lead even a single evidence to prove that the quality of goods supplied was inferior.
Civil Suit No. 724/20 Shyam Sunder Gupta Vs. Lokeshwar Dutt & Counter Claim No. 11/21 Lokeshwar Dutt Vs. Shyam Sunder Gupta Page 31 of 37
61. The plaintiff was examined as RW-1 in the counter claim. He was confronted with his cross-examination Mark-D in the main suit wherein he had stated that the invoices were prepared by him son Mr. Prabhat Gupta. On confrontation, he stated that some times he used to prepare the invoices and some times his son. He could not tell which invoices were made by him and the one which were made by his son. Further in his cross-examination, he stated that he does not take any advance payment of any booking from his clients.
62. The issues in civil cases are to be decided on the scale of preponderance of probabilities. The doctrine of preponderance of probabilities was discussed in the judgment titled Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research v. Jaspal Singh , (2009) 7 SCC 330 which reads as under:
"17. In Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka (1980) 1 SCC 30 this curt dealt with in details the distinction between negligence in civil law n din criminal law. It has been held that there is marked difference as to the effect of evidence, namely, the proof, in civil and criminal proceedings. In civil proceedings, a mere preponderance of probability is sufficient, and the defendant is not necessarily entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt; but in criminal proceedings, the persuasion of guilt must amount to such a moral certainty as convinces the mind of the court, as a reasonable man, beyond all reasonable doubt".
63. In Dr. N.G. Dastane Vs. Mrs. S. Dastane on 19th March, 1975 AIR 1975 SC 1534, (1975), SCC 326, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
Civil Suit No. 724/20 Shyam Sunder Gupta Vs. Lokeshwar Dutt & Counter Claim No. 11/21 Lokeshwar Dutt Vs. Shyam Sunder Gupta Page 32 of 37 "24.The normal rule which governs civil proceedings is that a fact can be said to be established if it proved by a preponderance of probabilities. This is for the reason that under the Evidence Act, Section 3, a fact is said to be proved when the court either either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probably that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. The belief regarding the existence of a fact may thus be founded on a balance of probabilities. A prudent man faced with conflicting probabilities concerning a fact-situation will act on the supposition that the fact exists, if on weighing the various probabilities he links that the preponderance is in favour of the existence of the particular fact. As a prudent man, so the court applies this test for finding whether a fact in issue can be said to be proved. The first step in this process is to fix the probabilities, the second to weigh them, though the two may often intermingle. The impossible is weeded out at the first stage, the improbable at the second. Within the wide range of probabilities the court has often a difficult choice to make but it is this choice which ultimately determines where the preponderance of probabilities lies. Important issues like those which affect the status of parties demand a closer scrutiny than those like the loan on a promissory note : "the nature and gravity of an issue necessarily determines the manner of attaining reasonable satisfaction of the truth of the issue "Per Dixon, J. In Wright v. Wright (1948) 77 C.L.R. 191 at p. 210; or as said by Lord Denning, "the degree of probability depends on the subject-matter.
In proportion as the offence is grave, so ought the proof to be clear" Blyth v. Blyth (1966) 1 A.E.R. 534 at 536. But whether the issue is one of cruelty or of a loan on a pronote, the test to apply is whether on a preponderance of probabilities the relevant fact is proved. In civil cases this, normally, is the standard of proof to apply for finding whether the burden of proof is discharged."
64. From the detailed discussion above, it is observed that the plaintiff Civil Suit No. 724/20 Shyam Sunder Gupta Vs. Lokeshwar Dutt & Counter Claim No. 11/21 Lokeshwar Dutt Vs. Shyam Sunder Gupta Page 33 of 37 has not been able to produce on record the original invoices. The invoices no. GST/835 and GST/841 do not find mention in the GST returns, which makes the existence of the invoices doubtful. The plaintiff has failed to place on record any proof of delivery of goods in the said invoices. Further, the invoices relied upon by the plaintiff do not match with the invoices produced on record by the defendant. In the circumstances, it is held that the plaintiff has failed to discharge the burden of proof cast upon him on the scale of preponderance of probabilities. As a result, Issue no. 1 in the main suit is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
65. The counter claimant / defendant has claimed that the defendant had paid Rs. 1,11,440/- as advance amount to the plaintiff, however, the goods supplied were sub-standard. The counter claimant has failed to lead any evidence regarding the quality of goods supplied, as discussed in detail above. There is no mention of any entry of Rs. 1,11,440/- in the ledger account filed by the counter claimant. In the totality of facts and circumstances, it is held that the counter claimant has failed to discharge the burden of proof on the scale of preponderance of probabilities and his counter claim is liable to be dismissed. As a result, Issue No. 1 in the counter claim is decided against the counter claimant / defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 2Civil Suit No. 724/20 Shyam Sunder Gupta Vs. Lokeshwar Dutt & Counter Claim No. 11/21 Lokeshwar Dutt Vs. Shyam Sunder Gupta Page 34 of 37 Issue no. 2 of main Suit:-
2. Whether the defendant are liable to make payment of pendentelite and future interest? If yes, then at what rate and for which period?
OPP Issue no. 2 of counter claim:-
2. Whether the respondent / non - counter claimant (plaintiff in the main suit) is liable to make payment of pendentelite and future interest? If yes, that at what rate and for which period? OP Counter-
claimant
66. Both these issues are taken up together and in view of the detailed discussions and findings giving in Issue no. 1, both these issues are decided negatively. Issue no. 2 in main suit is decided in favour of defendant and against the plaintiff and issue no. 2 in counter claim is decided in favour of non-claimant and against the counter claimant.
Issue no. 3 of main suit:-
hether this Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present matter? OPD
67. The onus to prove this issue was on the defendant. It is contended by the defendant that this Court has no jurisdiction to try the present matter as the defendant does not have his place of work in the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Per contra, it is contended by the plaintiff that its office is lying within the territorial jurisdiction of Civil Suit No. 724/20 Shyam Sunder Gupta Vs. Lokeshwar Dutt & Counter Claim No. 11/21 Lokeshwar Dutt Vs. Shyam Sunder Gupta Page 35 of 37 this Court.
68. Relevant provision with respect to jurisdiction is Section 20 of the CPC, which reads as under:-
20. Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of, action arises:- Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction-
(a)the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or
(b)any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
69. In M/s Auto Mover Vs Luminious Power Technologies Pvt. Limited CM (M) 604/2020, CM APPL. 30745/2020, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi relied upon the judgment in Satyapal v. Slick Auto Accessories (P) Ltd., (2014) SCC OnLine Del 998 wherein it was stated that the Court may have jurisdiction when the cause of action arises within its local limit 'wholly or in part' . It was further held that the fact of having receipt of part payment in the jurisdiction of the Court will be enough to confer jurisdiction.
Civil Suit No. 724/20 Shyam Sunder Gupta Vs. Lokeshwar Dutt & Counter Claim No. 11/21 Lokeshwar Dutt Vs. Shyam Sunder Gupta Page 36 of 37
70. In the present case, the payment has been received within the jurisdiction of this Court and accordingly, this Court is having jurisdiction to proceed with the matter as per Section 20 of CPC. In light of detailed discussions, the issue no. 3 of the main Suit is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Relief :
71. Keeping in view the detailed discussion and laws cited above, the suit of the plaintiff and the counter-claimant of the defendant are dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared.
72. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Digitally signed by HIMANSHU HIMANSHU RAMAN SINGH
RAMAN Date:
SINGH 2024.08.03
15:59:42
+0530
Announced in open Court (Himanshu Raman Singh)
on 03.08.2024. SCJ-cum-RC (West)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
03.08.2024
Civil Suit No. 724/20 Shyam Sunder Gupta Vs. Lokeshwar Dutt
&
Counter Claim No. 11/21 Lokeshwar Dutt Vs. Shyam Sunder Gupta Page 37 of 37