Delhi District Court
Respa Chemicals Private Limited vs M/S. Perfect Enterprises on 26 November, 2022
IN THE COURT OF ADJ07, SOUTHEAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS,
DELHI
Presided By : Sh. Jay Thareja, DHJS
Civil Suit No: 207437/16
RESPA Chemicals Private Limited
Having its Office at:
F95, 1st Floor,
Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase3,
New Delhi110020.
... Plaintiff
Versus
M/s. Perfect Enterprises
(Proprietor Ship of Sh. Madhukant Sehgal)
Having its Office at:
I19, Upper Ground Floor,
Shivlok House1,
Karam Pura Commercial Complex,
New Delhi110015.
... Defendant
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 9,12,669/ Etc.
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 21.12.2013
DATE OF FINAL ARGUMENTS : 20.10.2022
DATE OF DECISION : 26.11.2022
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant, seeking recovery of (a) the principal sum of Rs.9,12,669/, (b) pendentelite and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum and (c) costs of this suit.
Civil Suit No.207437/2016RESPA Chemicals Private Limited v M/s. Perfect Enterprises Page No.1 of 17
2. In order to justify the recovery of the aforesaid money from the defendant, the plaintiff has interalia pleaded in the plaint of this suit that the plaintiff is a private limited company registered as per the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956; that the plaintiff has instituted this suit through Sh. Vikram Karmarkar, director of the plaintiff, who has been duly authorized to institute this suit on behalf of the plaintiff vide board resolution dated 22.11.2013; that the plaintiff is engaged in the business of selling chemicals, dyes and other allied material etc.; that the defendant is a proprietorship concern of Sh. Madhukant Sehgal; that the defendant had approached the plaintiff for purchasing chemicals, dyes etc.; that as per the orders placed by the defendant during 201112, the plaintiff had sold chemicals, dyes etc. (henceforth 'products') worth Rs.29,75,028/ to the defendant; that in respect of the said sales, the defendant had only paid Rs.17,00,000/ to the plaintiff, including the last payment of Rs.25,000/ made on 09.11.2013; that as per the statement of account maintained by the plaintiff, a sum of Rs.9,12,669/ had remained unpaid by the defendant; that in order to recover the said amount of Rs.9,12,669/, the plaintiff had served a legal notice dated 15.10.2013 upon the defendant; that despite service of the said legal notice, the defendant had not paid any money to the plaintiff and that in such circumstances, the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendant, the sum of Rs.9,12,669/ along with pendentelite and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
3. Upon service of summons for settlement of issues of this suit, the defendant has contested this suit by filing his written statement. In the written Civil Suit No.207437/2016 RESPA Chemicals Private Limited v M/s. Perfect Enterprises Page No.2 of 17 statement of the defendant, it is interalia pleaded that the plaintiff is not a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956; that Sh. Vikram Karmarkar has no authority to institute this suit on behalf of the plaintiff; that instead of the defendant approaching the plaintiff, the plaintiff had approached the defendant, for advancing the sale of its products because the previous seller/distributor of the plaintiff in Delhi and Faridabad, M/s. Sumit Dyes and Chemicals, was to be replaced; that a written contract of sole distributorship was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant but a copy thereof was not supplied to the defendant; that during the execution of the said contract, the plaintiff had committed a fraud upon the defendant, by falsely representing that it had partnered with a firm of Turkey, whose products (chemicals, dyes etc.) will do magic in the market/cloth industry; that the products sold by the plaintiff to the defendant were defective; that when the defendant had resold the products purchased from the plaintiff in the market, he had received multiple complaints from the buyers/customers; that when the defendant had informed the plaintiff about the defective products, the plaintiff (through Sh. Vikram Karmarkar) had assured the defendant that the defective products will be replaced but ultimately the plaintiff had not done so; that the defective products of the plaintiff worth Rs.7,16,789/ are lying in a godown with the defendant qua which the defendant has paid godown charges of Rs.5,74,500/; that the plaintiff is guilty of committing breach of the contract between the parties because apart from the defendant, the plaintiff had appointed other distributors in Delhi, without intimation to the defendant; that the conduct of the plaintiff has resulted in the defamation of the defendant in the market; that the invoices filed by the plaintiff along with plaint of this suit are fabricated; that the statement of account filed by the plaintiff along with plaint of this suit does not Civil Suit No.207437/2016 RESPA Chemicals Private Limited v M/s. Perfect Enterprises Page No.3 of 17 reflect the correct status of the transactions between the parties; that the defendant has already paid all the dues of the plaintiff; that the defendant is liable to recover Rs.7,16,789/ from the plaintiff, for which the defendant has filed the separate counterclaim1 and that in such state of affairs, this Court should dismiss this suit with costs in favour of the defendant.
4. In the replication, the plaintiff has traversed the contents of the written statement of the defendant, made the necessary denials and reaffirmed the contents of the plaint. Additionally, the plaintiff has pleaded that there was no defect in the products sold by it to the defendant; that it had taken back, some of the products sold to the defendant because the defendant was unable to sell them in the market and had issued the requisite credit note(s) in favour of the defendant; that the entire story of the defendant of the plaintiff agreeing to take back defective products, is false and that the conduct of the plaintiff has not resulted in any defamation of the defendant.
5. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by a Ld. Predecessor Judge, on 04.07.2014: "1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for recovery of money as claimed in this suit? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if any at what rate and for which period? OPP
3. Relief."
1 It is interesting to note that in the counterclaim, the defendant has not sought recovery of godown charges of Rs.5,74,500/ as well as any damages on account of the alleged defamation.
Civil Suit No.207437/2016RESPA Chemicals Private Limited v M/s. Perfect Enterprises Page No.4 of 17
6. During the trial of this suit, one witness viz. PW1 Sh. Vikram Karmarkar was examined in support of the case of the plaintiff and one witness viz. DW1 Sh. Madhukant Sehgal was examined in support of the case of the defendant.
7. During examinationinchief, PW1 Sh. Vikram Karmarkar had deposed in line with the plaint of this suit and tendered in evidence board resolution dated 22.11.2013, Ex.PW1/1, original invoices, Ex.PW1/2(colly), original statement of account, Ex.PW1/3, legal notice dated 15.10.2013, Ex.PW1/4 and postal receipts as well as tracking report, Ex.PW1/5(colly). During crossexamination dated 16.10.2017, PW1 Sh. Vikram Karmarkar had interalia deposed that he has done Math (Hons.), MBA in international marketing from IIFT; that the plaintiff company was started around 2009; that one of the sales executive of the plaintiff was contacted by Sh. Madhukant, proprietor of the defendant for taking agency of the products of the plaintiff; that Sh. Amit, salesman was looking after the sales of the products of the plaintiff from 2010 to 2015; that no written contract was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant; that the understanding between the plaintiff and the defendant was that the plaintiff will supply/sell its products to the defendant, with a credit period of 75 to 90 days and the defendant will sell them in NCR; that it is wrong to say that the products sold by the defendant to the plaintiff were defective; that it is wrong to say that the invoice no. HCS/RC/201111/077 dated 22.11.2011, invoice no. HCS/RC/201112/085 dated 20.12.2011, invoice no. HCS/RC/201201/086 dated 09.01.2012, invoice no. HCS/RC/201201/090 dated 16.01.2012 and Civil Suit No.207437/2016 RESPA Chemicals Private Limited v M/s. Perfect Enterprises Page No.5 of 17 invoice no. HCS/RC/201202/093 dated 13.02.2012, part of Ex.PW1/2(colly) are false and fabricated; that he had visited the office of the defendant and the office of his customers several times in 2011 and 2012; that in some of the said visits, he was accompanied by Sh. Amit; that he had never visited the godown of the defendant; that it is wrong to say that the defendant had made complaints regarding defect in the products sold by the plaintiff; that it is wrong to say that the services of Sh. Amit were terminated due to complaints by the defendant; that it is wrong to say that the defective products of the plaintiff are lying in the godown of the defendant; that it is wrong to say that the plaintiff has caused loss to the defendant. During further crossexamination dated 29.09.2018, PW1 Sh. Vikram Karmarkar had interalia deposed that the plaintiff is the importer of products made by Respa Chemical in Turkey; that the plaintiff has changed its name from Horizon Clever Sales Pvt. Ltd. to Respa Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. for commercial reasons; that none of the products sold by the plaintiff to the defendant were defective; that when the plaintiff had taken back some of its products because the defendant was not making timely payment, it was clearly decided between the parties that the defendant will pay the balance dues of the plaintiff, in a reasonable and short course of time; that emails were exchanged between the plaintiff and the defendant in 2012 but they have not been placed on record; that now he cannot produce the said emails; that it is wrong to say that during the transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant, Sh. Amit Mishra was exclusively dealing with the defendant, on behalf of the plaintiff; that the complaints sent by the defendant qua defects in the products of the plaintiff, were sent after service of the legal notice dated 15.10.2013, Ex.PW1/4; that it is wrong to say that Sh. Sumit Sikka, was a distributor of the plaintiff; that till 2014, the Civil Suit No.207437/2016 RESPA Chemicals Private Limited v M/s. Perfect Enterprises Page No.6 of 17 defendant had never raised the issue of defects in the products of the plaintiff and that it is wrong to say that the plaintiff has spoiled the goodwill of the defendant in the market.
8. During examination in chief, DW1 Sh. Madhukant Sehgal had deposed in line with the written statement filed in this suit and tendered in evidence photos and tax invoices, Ex.DW1/1(colly) and ledger account, Ex.DW1/3. During crossexamination, DW1 Sh. Madhukant Sehgal had interalia deposed that he knows Sh. Vikram Karmarkar, director of the plaintiff since 2011; that Sh. Amit Mishra had introduced him to Sh. Vikram Karmarkar; that he does not remember the exact date when he had made the last purchase from the plaintiff; that it is wrong say that there was no defect in the products sold by the plaintiff to him; that Sh. Vikram Karmarker alongwith a technician from Turkey had found that the products sold by the plaintiff to him were defective; that it is correct that the plaintiff is the sole distributor/seller of the goods of Respa Chemicals, a Turkish company/business; that it is correct that there is no document, reflecting that he/the defendant was the exclusive/sole distributor of the plaintiff, in Delhi; that he does not remember the exact date when he had found the products sold by the plaintiff to him, to be defective; that even after checking his record, he cannot state the date when he had found the products sold by the plaintiff to him, to be defective; that there was no written agreement between the defendant and the plaintiff qua return of products worth Rs.7,16,789/; that all the communications between him and the representative of the plaintiff were oral; that despite having made the last purchase from the plaintiff, on 13.02.2012, he had continued to make payments to the plaintiff till Civil Suit No.207437/2016 RESPA Chemicals Private Limited v M/s. Perfect Enterprises Page No.7 of 17 07.11.2013 under the impression that the defective products will be taken back; that the technician from Turkey had visited on 09.02.2012 and his name was Sh. Ferhet; that he was promised that the defective products will be tested and a report will be generated but ultimately, no such report was provided to him; that the credit note reflected at point X on the ledger, Ex.DW1/3, pertains to return of defective products; that it is wrong to say that the said credit note pertains to products which he was unable to sell in the market; that it is wrong to say that he is not entitled to recover Rs.7,16,789/ from the plaintiff; that it is wrong to say that he had not suffered any loss of reputation in the market, on account of sale of the defective products of the plaintiff to his customers; that Sh. Varun had started selling the products of the plaintiff in Delhi after the agreement between him and the plaintiff; that Sh. Sumit Sikka was selling the products of the plaintiff in Delhi, before him; that Sh. Amit Mishra was one of the salesman of the plaintiff; that since in his evidence affidavit, Ex.DW1/A, he has not mentioned the godown charges and since, he has not placed on record any documentary evidence regarding godown charges, the plaintiff is not liable to pay any godown charges to him; that since, he has not quantified the claim qua damages for defamation, no defamation was suffered by him and that it is wrong to say that he has deliberately withheld the payment of the plaintiff and filed a false counterclaim against the plaintiff.
9. In order to adjudicate upon this suit, I had heard Sh. Satish Kumar, Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff and Ms. Meenakshi Kalra, Ld. Advocate for the defendant, on 20.10.2022. The issue wise findings, in this suit are as follows:
Civil Suit No.207437/2016RESPA Chemicals Private Limited v M/s. Perfect Enterprises Page No.8 of 17 ISSUE NO.1 "1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for recovery of money as claimed in this suit? OPP"
10. In respect of this issue, the Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff had submitted that this Court should decide this issue in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant (a) because the defence of the defendant that some of the products sold by the plaintiff to him vide invoices, Ex.PW1/2(colly) were defective, is per se untenable on account of the law regarding Section 41 and 42 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, as explained by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in M/s. Lohmann Rausher Gmbh v M/s. Medisphere Marking Pvt. Ltd., (2005) 117 DLT 95; (b) because even otherwise, the defendant has not led any credible evidence to prove that any of the products sold by the plaintiff to the defendant were defective;2 (c) because the payments made by the defendant to the plaintiff till 07.11.2013 (i.e. long after the last sale on 13.02.2012) reflect that the defendant never had any issue with the products sold by the plaintiff and was paying the pending dues of the plaintiff, as per his financial capacity and (d) because the false counterclaim made by the defendant against the plaintiff, cannot be a ground for this Court to reject the genuine claim of the plaintiff, premised on the invoices, Ex.PW1/2(colly) and statement of account, Ex.PW1/3.
2 In support of this submission, the Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff had pointed out that the defendant had not examined (a) any expert witness and (b) any of his customers (who had allegedly found the product of the plaintiff to be defective) in order to prove that any of the products sold by the plaintiff to the defendant were defective.
Civil Suit No.207437/2016RESPA Chemicals Private Limited v M/s. Perfect Enterprises Page No.9 of 17
11. Per contra, the Ld. Advocate for the defendant had submitted that this Court should decide this issue in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff
(a) because the testimony of the defendant viz. DW1 Sh. Madhukant Sehgal establishes that some of the products sold by the plaintiff to the defendant were defective and (b) because the counterclaim filed by the defendant against the plaintiff, is genuine.
12. After considering the rival submissions made by the Ld. Advocates for the parties, on 20.10.2022, I find that this issue is liable to be decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant because of the following reasons.
13. Firstly, this issue is liable to be decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant because in view of the law regarding Section 41 and 42 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, as explained by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Lohmann (supra), the defence of the defendant that some of the products sold by way of the invoices, Ex.PW1/2(colly) were defective, is untenable and cannot defeat the claim of the plaintiff, which is premised on the invoices, Ex.PW1/2(colly) and statement of account, Ex.PW1/3.
14. In Lohmann (supra), the plaintiff had sued the defendant for recovery of price of goods sold to the defendant vide invoices dated 09.05.2000 and 13.09.2000. In order to contest the claim of the plaintiff, the defendant had pleaded that the goods sold to it by the defendant were defective and the said fact was communicated to the plaintiff, on 31.12.2001. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, relying upon Section 41 and 42 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, had Civil Suit No.207437/2016 RESPA Chemicals Private Limited v M/s. Perfect Enterprises Page No.10 of 17 rejected the said defence of the defendant and while doing so observed that the long gap after which the goods were ostensibly rejected by the defendant on the premise that they were defected/substandard is clearly fatal to the projected defence in the context of statutory law being Section 41 and 42 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. The relevant paragraphs of Lohmann (supra) are reproduced below: "20. Section 41 and Section 42 of the Sale of Goods Act reads as under: "41. Buyer's right of examining the goods. (1) Where goods are delivered to the buyer which he has not previously examined, he is not deemed to have accepted them unless and until he has had a reasonable opportunity of examining them for the purpose of ascertaining whether they are in conformity with the contract.
(2) Unless otherwise agreed, when the seller tenders delivery of goods to the buyer, he is bound, on request, to afford the buyer a reasonable opportunity of examining the goods for the purpose of ascertaining whether they are in conformity with the contract.
42. Acceptance. The buyer is deemed to have accepted the goods when he intimates to the seller that he has accepted them, or when the goods have been delivered to him and he does any act in relation to them which is inconsistent with the ownership of the seller, or when, after Civil Suit No.207437/2016 RESPA Chemicals Private Limited v M/s. Perfect Enterprises Page No.11 of 17 the lapse of a reasonable time, he retains the goods without intimating to the seller that he has rejected them."
21. As per the mandate of Section 41 of the Sale of Goods Act, the defendant not having inspected the goods in question prior to delivery, had a right to inspect the case on delivery and report defects within a reasonable time of delivery. If not rejected within reasonable time, mandate of Section 42 stipulates that the defendant would be deemed to have accepted the goods.
22. Undisputably, goods under first invoice were received in the month of May, 2000 and under the second invoice in the month of September, 2000. Defendant, on receipt of the goods, did not indicate to the plaintiff that the goods were defective till as late as 31.12.2001. This was when the plaintiff had served upon the defendant a legal notice in the month of October, 2001.
23. Rejection of the goods predicated on a stand that the goods were substandard and defective on 31st December, 2001 is not within a reasonable period of time considering the fact that the goods under the first invoice were received in the month of May, 2000 and under the second invoice were received in the month of September, 2000. Rejection indicated on 31st December, 2001 was after one year and seven months of receipt of goods under the first invoice and one year and three months after receipt of goods Civil Suit No.207437/2016 RESPA Chemicals Private Limited v M/s. Perfect Enterprises Page No.12 of 17 under the second invoice. Defendant, as per mandate of Section 42 of the Sale of Goods Act is, therefore, deemed to have accepted the goods.
...
28. In the decision reported as AIR 1930 Bombay 249 Nagan Das Mathura Das v. N.V. Valmamohomed, view approved by the House of Lords was reiterated being: "If a buyer orders goods of a certain description, and the seller delivers goods of a different description, it is open to the buyer to reject them. But if he does not reject them but keeps the goods, even if he does so in ignorance of the fact that they are of a description different from that provided for by the contract he is debarred from rejecting the goods thereafter, and can only fall back upon a claim for damages, as upon a breach of warranty."
29. The long gap after which goods were ostensibly rejected on the premise that they were defective/sub standard is clearly fatal to the projected defense in the context of statutory law being Section 41 and 42 of the Sale of Goods Act."
15. In my view, the logic of law applied by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Lohmann (supra) squarely applies to this suit because the defendant viz. DW1 Sh. Madhukant Sehgal has been unable to prove before this Court that within reasonable time of receiving the products mentioned in the invoices, Civil Suit No.207437/2016 RESPA Chemicals Private Limited v M/s. Perfect Enterprises Page No.13 of 17 Ex.PW1/2(colly), he had informed the plaintiff that they are defective. 3
16. Secondly, this issue is liable to be decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant because de hors the aforesaid, the defendant has not led any credible evidence to prove before this Court that any of the products sold by the plaintiff to the defendant vide invoices, Ex.PW1/2 (colly) were defective. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the defendant has neither examined any expert witness nor examined any of his dissatisfied customers to prove that the products sold by the plaintiff to the defendant were defective. In my view, the said failure of the defendant, particularly the failure of the defendant to examine any of his dissatisfied customers, entitles this Court to draw an adverse inference against the defendant as per illustration (g) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and conclude that the products sold by the plaintiff to the defendant vide invoices, Ex.PW1/2(colly) were not defective and were not rejected by any of the customers of the defendant.
17. Thirdly, this issue is liable to be decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant because the periodical payments made by the defendant to the plaintiff w.e.f. 21.02.2012 to 09.11.2013 (i.e. after the last sale, on 13.02.2012), all of which are reflected in the statement of account, Ex.PW1/3 as well as the ledger, Ex.DW1/3, belie the defence of the defendant that some of the 3 In this regard, it is noteworthy that in his written statement, the defendant has not pleaded any specific date, when he had communicated to the plaintiff that some of the products mentioned in the invoices, Ex.PW1/2(colly) are defective. Also, it is noteworthy that during his testimony also, the defendant viz. DW1 Sh. Madhukant Sehgal has not disclosed any specific date, when he had communicated to the plaintiff that some of the products mentioned in the invoices, Ex.PW1/2(colly) are defective.
Civil Suit No.207437/2016RESPA Chemicals Private Limited v M/s. Perfect Enterprises Page No.14 of 17 products sold by way of the invoices, Ex.PW1/2(colly) were defective. In my view, it is against the grain of logic as well as common course of human behavior that a buyer, who is in possession of the defective products of the seller, will continue to pay the dues of the seller, without having clarity regarding the credit, he/she is entitled to on account of the defective products of the seller.
18. Fourthly, this issue is liable to be decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant because the plea of the defendant that the plaintiff has committed breach of the contract between the parties, by appointing other distributors/agents in Delhi, the plea of the defendant that the plaintiff has caused defamation of the defendant in the market, the plea of the defendant that he has incurred godown charges of Rs.5,74,500/ for storing the defective products of the plaintiff and the plea of the defendant that he is entitled to recover Rs.7,16,789/ from the plaintiff, provide a cause of action to the defendant to sue the plaintiff for recovery of monies in the shape of damages/compensation etc. but do not entitle the defendant to withhold the money/price payable qua the products sold by the plaintiff to the defendant vide invoices, Ex.PW1/2(colly). 4
19. In view of the abovenoted four reasons, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. It is held that on the strength of the invoices, Ex.PW1/2(colly) and the statement of account, Ex.PW1/3, the plaintiff is entitle to recover from the defendant, the principal sum of Rs.9,12,669/.
4 The defendant has presented the said cause of action by way of a counterclaim registered as CS No. 976/2022, Madhukant Sehgal v Horizon Clever Sales Pvt. Ltd. The said counterclaim has also been decided today, but by way of a separate judgment.
Civil Suit No.207437/2016RESPA Chemicals Private Limited v M/s. Perfect Enterprises Page No.15 of 17 ISSUE NO.2 "2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if any at what rate and for which period? OPP"
20. In view of the finding given qua issue no.1, it is clear that the plaintiff is entitled to recover pendentelite and future interest from the defendant. In Central Bank of India v Ravindra, AIR 2001 SC 3095, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that grant of pendentelite and future interest is a subject matter of the discretion of the Court and not to be governed by the agreement between the parties. In view thereof, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and it is held that the plaintiff shall be entitled to recover from the defendant, pendentelite and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum.5 RELIEF
21. As a net result of the aforesaid, this suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, for a sum of Rs.9,12,669/ alongwith costs as well as pendentelite and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
22. Before parting with this judgment, I find it necessary to clarify (a) that 5 In exercise of the discretionary power of this Court, I have granted to the plaintiff, pendentelite and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum because Section 34 of CPC, 1908 as well as the provisions of the Interest Act, 1978, contemplate grant of interest at the rate of 6% per annum and because in the past decade, the nationalized banks have also granted interest at the rate of 56% per annum, on terms deposits.Civil Suit No.207437/2016
RESPA Chemicals Private Limited v M/s. Perfect Enterprises Page No.16 of 17 the failure of the defendant to reply to the legal notice dated 15.10.2013, Ex.PW1/4, also reflects that the defence of the defendant that some of the products mentioned in the invoices, Ex.PW1/2(colly) were defective, falls within the four corners of the law regarding Section 41 and 42 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, as explained by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Lohmann (supra); (b) that the suggestion put by the defendant to PW1 Sh. Vikram Karmarkar that invoice no. HCS/RC/201111/077 dated 22.11.2011, invoice no. HCS/RC/201112/085 dated 20.12.2011, invoice no. HCS/RC/201201/086 dated 09.01.2012, invoice no. HCS/RC/201201/090 dated 16.01.2012 and invoice no. HCS/RC/201202/093 dated 13.02.2012, part of Ex.PW1/2(colly) are false and fabricated, was totally baseless because the ledger account, Ex.DW1/3 tendered in evidence by the defendant viz. DW1 Sh. Madhukant Sehgal, has the details of all the said invoices and (c) that the failure of the defendant to sue the plaintiff for recovery of godown charges of Rs.5,74,500/ and for recovery of damages on account of defamation, points to the conclusion that the plea of the defendant qua the said claims was a bogey, meant to protract the trial of this suit.
23. After preparation of the decree sheet by the Reader, the file shall be consigned to the record room.Digitally signed by JAY
JAY THAREJA
THAREJA Date:
2022.11.26
16:29:05 +0530
Announced in open Court (Jay Thareja)
today on 26.11.2022 Ld. ADJ07, South East District,
Saket Courts/Delhi
Civil Suit No.207437/2016
RESPA Chemicals Private Limited v M/s. Perfect Enterprises Page No.17 of 17