Delhi District Court
C-659 vs M/S. Aluco Paints Limited on 16 October, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHUCHI LALER: ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE, EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA
COURTS, DELHI.
Suit No. : 2124/16
In the matter of :-
Mohd. Azam Bitto,
Proprietor of M/s. Khushi Enterprises,
Shop No. 49/B/1, East Azad Nagar,
Krishna Nagar, Delhi - 110051.
Also at
C-659, Gali No. 11, Rajiv Nagar,
Shri Ram Colony,
Ram Vihar, Delhi - 110094. ..... Plaintiff
Versus
M/s. Aluco Paints Limited,
Through its Director / AR
Registered Office at 43, First Floor,
Bharat Nagar, NFC, New Delhi - 110065.
Branch Office At D-19/3,
Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase - 2, New Delhi - 110020. ..... Defendant
Date of institution of the suit : 20.01.2016
Final Arguments Heard on : 11.10.2018
Date of Judgment : 16.10.2018
Suit for Recovery of Rs.9 lakhs.
JUDGMENT :-
1. The present suit for recovery of Rs.9 lakhs has been Suit No. 2124/2016 Mohd. Azam Bitto Vs Aluco Panels Limited Page No. 1 of 17 pages filed by the plaintiff on account of supply of defective goods to him by the defendant company.
PLAINT
2. Brief narration of the facts as disclosed, in the plaint, is as under : -
2.1 That the parties to the present suit are in same kind of business and there are business dealings between them since a long time. In the year 2013-2014, plaintiff purchased the aluminum composite panel and other raw material from the defendant, accordingly, the defendant took two blank cheques bearing no. 011366 and 011375 of Central Bank of India, Patparganj, Delhi as security.
2.2 That when the plaintiff and his labour were working, he noticed that the materials supplied by the defendant was defective and made written complaints dated 20.03.2013 and 26.03.2013 to defendant. The defendant assured the plaintiff that it will not send the defective material again. 2.3 That the plaintiff continuously asked the defendant to compensate for the defective material, however, the defendant kept on avoiding on one pretext or the other. In the year 2014, the plaintiff again noticed that there were some defective material sent by defendant and a written complaint dated 20.02.2014 was made. The defendant again assured to compensate the plaintiff.
2.4 That the plaintiff had to pay a total amount of Rs. 6 lakhs to the defendant for its defective goods as well as to labor.
The plaintiff has stopped taking the material from the defendant Suit No. 2124/2016 Mohd. Azam Bitto Vs Aluco Panels Limited Page No. 2 of 17 pages and has cleared all its payment. The plaintiff asked the defendant to return its security cheques, however, the defendant told that the said cheques were misplaced and it would never misuse the same.
2.5 That a notice dated 04.12.2014 was received by plaintiff from the defendant then the plaintiff came to know that the defendant has misused the security cheques. The defendant has filed a frivolous cases under Section 138 of N.I. Act as well as suit for recovery which are pending adjudication. 2.6 That the acts of defendant has lowered down the image of plaintiff in the society as well as in the market, hence, the defendant is liable to pay Rs. 3 lakhs as damages. On 04.01.2016, plaintiff met the defendant and requested it to make payment of Rs. 6 lakhs as well as Rs. 3 lakhs as damages but defendant flatly refused to pay the same.
Hence, the present suit.
WRITTEN STATEMENT
3. Defendant has contested the present suit by filing the written statement wherein it has taken preliminary objections such as the suit is based on false and frivolous allegations, plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts and the present suit has not been properly verified. The averments to the contrary are as under:-
3.1 That the plaintiff has filed the present suit merely for the purpose of creating false defence in complaint case u/s 138 N. I. Act and in Civil suit for recovery filed by defendant Suit No. 2124/2016 Mohd. Azam Bitto Vs Aluco Panels Limited Page No. 3 of 17 pages company against the plaintiff. The plaintiff, in discharge of his legal liability, had issued cheque which was dishonoured "insufficient fund".
3.2 That the defendant company had supplied Aluminium Composite Panels to the plaintiff and had raised invoices. The statement of account of defendant company clearly shows that the plaintiff made part payment on 25/06/2014 and an outstanding balance of Rs 6, 09,160/- was due upon the plaintiff but the plaintiff failed to repay the said amount. A legal notice dated 18/11/2014 was served upon the plaintiff, thereafter, the plaintiff issued two cheques bearing no.
011366 and 011375, both dated 25/11/2014 for Rs 1 lac each but the said cheques were dishonoured.
3.3 That the plaintiff had sent a reply dated 15/12/2014 but in the said reply, the plaintiff never stated the goods to be defective so the present suit is an afterthought and filed to create a false defence in criminal and civil case filed by the defendant company against the plaintiff.
Remaining material contents of the plaint have been denied and the defendant prayed for dismissal of the present suit with cost.
REPLICAITON
4. Replication to WS has been filed wherein the plaintiff has denied the allegation to the contrary and has reiterated and reaffirmed the averments made in the plaint.
Suit No. 2124/2016 Mohd. Azam Bitto Vs Aluco Panels Limited Page No. 4 of 17 pages ISSUES
5. Issues were struck by Ld. Predecessor on 18.04.2016 which are as under :-
(i). Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs. 9,00,000/- ? OPP
(ii). Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest, if so, at what rate ?
(iii). Whether the suit of the plaintiff is based upon false and frivolous allegations and the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts as alleged in the WS ? OPD
(iv). Relief.
Parties were directed to lead evidence.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
6. In support of its case, the plaintiff has examined three witnesses. The plaintiff himself stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit, which is Ex.PW1/1. He has relied upon the document i.e. copy of complaints dated 20/03/2013 and 20/02/2014 made to defendant company as Ex PW-1/A (colly).
The worker of defendant company / Sh Sandeep Sharma and worker of plaintiff company / Sh Jamshed have been examined as PW-2 and PW-3 and they tendered their evidence by way of affidavit as Ex PW-2/A and Ex PW-3/A. The aforesaid witnesses have been duly cross examined on behalf of defendant. Thereafter, plaintiff's evidence was closed.
Suit No. 2124/2016 Mohd. Azam Bitto Vs Aluco Panels Limited Page No. 5 of 17 pages DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
7. In rebuttal, AR of defendant/Sh Satpal Sharma stepped into the witness box as DW1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.DW1/A. He has relied upon the following documents:-
➢ Board Resolution as Ex DW-1/1;
➢ Copy of Board resolution as Mark A;
➢ Copy of Invoices as Mark B (colly-10 pages);
➢ Copy of plaint in suit bearing no. 275/2015 along
with documents as Mark C (colly);
➢ Copy of complaint u/s 138 of N.I. Act along with
documents as Mark D (colly);
➢ Copy of notice dated 18/11/2014 as Mark E;
➢ Copy of notice dated 04/12/2015 as Mark F.
DW-1 was duly cross-examined by ld. counsel for the plaintiff. Thereafter, defendant company closed its evidence.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
8. Written submissions have been filed by both the parties and the same have been perused.
Suit No. 2124/2016 Mohd. Azam Bitto Vs Aluco Panels Limited Page No. 6 of 17 pages JUDICIAL RESOLUTION
9. Issue-wise findings are as under :
Issue No. (i). Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs. 9,00,000/- ? OPP
10. The onus to prove the said issue is upon the plaintiff. The case of plaintiff is that he had purchased goods from the defendant which were found to be defective regarding which he made complaints on 20.03.2013, 26.03.2013 and 20.02.2014. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay an amount of Rs. 6 lakhs for defective goods and an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs for harming the image of plaintiff in the society / market.
11. The defendant, per contra, alleged that the plaintiff is liable to pay an amount of Rs.7,18,810/- as outstanding dues and the cheques of Rs.2 lakhs issued in partial discharge of the said liability have been dishonored. The defendant has filed a complaint case under Section 138 of N.I. Act and also a civil suit for recovery against the plaintiff and the plaintiff has filed the present suit only for the purpose of creating a false defense.
12. Firstly, the court would determine whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 6 lakhs on account of supply of inferior and defective goods. It is not in dispute that the goods were received by the plaintiff. Once the goods are received by the plaintiff, the onus is squarely upon him to show that they were of inferior quality; and in addition thereto, he is also required to show that he had told the defendant to take back those goods. (Reference may be made Suit No. 2124/2016 Mohd. Azam Bitto Vs Aluco Panels Limited Page No. 7 of 17 pages to the judgment titled as Naraingarh Suger Mills Ltd. vs. Krishna Malhotra, 190 (2012) DLT 253).
13. The plaintiff has miserably failed to show that the goods were of inferior quality and defective. Merely an averment in the plaint that the goods were defective and of inferior quality would not suffice. Such an averment is required to be backed by some cogent material on record. On the contrary, there is material on record to show that this plea lacks substance. Besides the plaintiff's self serving ipse dixit, there is nothing on record to even remotely establish that the goods which were supplied by the defendant were defective and not up to the mark. The testimony of PW-2 and PW-3 does not render any assistance to the plaintiff's case. PW-2 has nowhere deposed, in his affidavit Ex.PW2/A, that he had personally seen the goods and found it to be defective. PW-3 deposed, in his examination in chief, that while he was working with the plaintiff, the plaintiff noticed the material to be defective. PW-3 has also not testified that he had himself noticed any defect in the goods. Moreover, he admitted during his cross examination, that he is a contractor for supplying the laborers to the plaintiff and he was only concerned with the supply of labor and receiving payment of wages of laborers. Thus, apart from self favouring testimony of plaintiff / PW-1, there is no documentary or ocular evidence on record in support of plaintiff's plea of goods being of inferior quality.
14. It appears that the plea of defect in the goods is an after thought and has been made to avoid liability. The plaintiff / PW-1 admitted, in his cross examination, that the entire payment towards the goods supplied by the defendant company Suit No. 2124/2016 Mohd. Azam Bitto Vs Aluco Panels Limited Page No. 8 of 17 pages was not made. The relevant extract of cross examination of PW- 1 is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"It is correct that the defendant company had supplied the goods worth Rs 20, 28,816/- to me. It is also correct that I had made the payment of Rs 13,26,200/- to the defendant company with respect to the goods supplied to me. I had also made the payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the defendant company in cash. However, I had not filed any receipt on record showing the payment of Rs 5,00,000/- made by me to the defendant company.....
......The mode of the payment with respect to the goods supplied by the defendant company, used to be in cash as well as through cheque and I got receipts against the payment made by me in cash."
15. A perusal of aforesaid cross examination of PW-1 reveals that the plaintiff has not made the payment of an amount of Rs. 7,02,616/- (Rs. 20,28,816 i.e. total value of goods supplied - Rs.13,26,200/- i.e. admitted payment made) to the defendant against the goods received by him. The plaintiff claimed that he made further payment of Rs. 5 lakhs in cash, however, he could not produce any receipt in support thereof, despite an admission that he always got receipts against cash payments. Even if it is presumed that the plaintiff made the payment of Rs.5 lakhs in cash, still the plaintiff has an admitted liability of Rs.2,02,616/- towards the defendant. Therefore, it stands proved that the plaintiff has not made the entire payment of the goods received by him from the defendant company. There was no agreement between the parties to the effect that in case the goods received are defective or of inferior quality, the plaintiff would be justified in withholding the payment of the goods supplied to him by the defendant company.
16. It has not been disclosed as to how / on what basis the plaintiff has assessed the loss suffered on account of supply Suit No. 2124/2016 Mohd. Azam Bitto Vs Aluco Panels Limited Page No. 9 of 17 pages of defective goods at Rs.6 lakhs. No request was made to the defendant for survey and assessment of loss. Plaintiff / PW-1 admitted, in his cross examination that he has not filed any document with respect to loss suffered by him in the form of labor cost and other losses. The plaintiff cannot arbitrarily assess the loss at whimsical amount of Rs. 6 lakhs.
17. Even assuming that there were defects in the goods, yet the outcome of the present issue would not be any different. If there were defects, it was expected of the plaintiff to have at least bring the same to defendant's knowledge at the earliest or at any time provided within a reasonable time. In para no. 5 and 7 of the plaint, the plaintiff has stated he had made written complaint to the defendant regarding defective material on 20.03.2013, 26.03.2013 and 20.02.2014. The copy of complaint dated 26.03.2013 has not been filed on record. In order to ascertain whether any correspondence was made by the plaintiff to the defendant regarding any defect, the relevant portions of cross examination of PW-1 and PW-2 have to be read conjointly which are reproduced hereinbelow:-
"PW-1 - I do not remember whether I had written any letter/complaint regarding damaged goods to the defendant company on 26.03.2003. I did not send the letter/complaint dated 20.02.2014 to the defendant company by post. The letters dated 20.03.2013 and 20.02.2014 were received by Sandeep Sharma in the presence of Amit Jain, supervisor of the defendant company".
"PW-2 / Sh. Sandeep Sharma - I left the defendant company in the year 2012....
....I was not authorized by the defendant company to receive any letter or complaint from any person.... ....It is wrong to suggest that I had received complaint from the plaintiff after resignation from the defendant company"
Suit No. 2124/2016 Mohd. Azam Bitto Vs Aluco Panels Limited Page No. 10 of 17 pages
18. A reading of the aforesaid cross examination makes it apparent that PW-1 has deposed that the letters dated 20.03.2013 and 20.02.2014 were received by PW-2 whereas PW-2 has stated that he was not authorized by the defendant company to receive any such letter. Moreover, PW-2 left the defendant company in the year 2012, so he could not have received the letters dated 20.03.2013 and 20.02.2014 on behalf of defendant company, subsequent to his resignation in the year 2012. No effort was made by the plaintiff to send these letters to the defendant company through post. The plaintiff has miserably failed to establish that there was any correspondence with the defendant whereby the defect, if any, was brought to its knowledge.
19. Defendant had issued legal notice dt. 04.12.2014 to the plaintiff as a precursor to institution of the complaint under section 138, NI Act. Receipt of this legal notice too did not ring a bell in plaintiff's ears. The plaintiff even, in reply to this legal notice dt. 15.12.2014, never put across his grievance to the defendant vis-a-vis the alleged defects. In the entire reply, there is no whisper of the goods being defective or of inferior quality. The bottomline, therefore, is that between 2013 and 20.01.2016 (when the instant suit was filed) there was never any correspondence from plaintiff's side to the defendant with regard to any defect. This time gap of nearly three years (between the year 2013 to 20.01.2016) is clearly fatal to the plaintiff. The necessary inference thereof is that there were no defect in the first place or that within a reasonable time the plaintiff did not detect the defect. And even if he had detected the defect, he did not put across his point to the defendant Suit No. 2124/2016 Mohd. Azam Bitto Vs Aluco Panels Limited Page No. 11 of 17 pages within a reasonable time. Course of normal human conduct and the law (conjoint reading of Sections 41 & 42, Sale of Goods Act, 1930) require that defect in good must be brought to seller's knowledge within a reasonable time.
20. Furthermore, it is on record that plaintiff has made part payment, towards the supplied goods, to a substantial extent.1 In the case titled as M/s KIG Systel Ltd. v. M/s Fujitsu ICIM Ltd., AIR 2001 Delhi 357, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that when a buyer asserts that goods are defective, it is not open to him to withhold the payment once the delivery is accepted; since they are deemed to have been accepted by operation of law. That apart, where a buyer buys goods of certain description and their price is substantially paid then it is not open to the buyer to revert later on, and that too after reasonable time, and assert that the goods were defective and therefore, he would reject them. The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under:-
"12. The disputes between the parties cannot be decided de hors the sundry provisions of the Sale of Goods Act. Part-payment to a substantial extent has been made by the defendant/applicant. When a buyer such as the defendant/applicant asserts that the merchandise/goods were defective, it is not open to it to withhold payment once the delivery is accepted; since they are deemed to have been accepted by operation of law. In Nagandas Mathuradas v. N. V. Valmamohomed, AIR 1930 Bombay 249, in the opinion of the Bench, the Buyer was playing fast and loose inasmuch as the initial credit entry recorded in favour of the seller was subsequently reversed. The fact that a substantial part payment had been made by the defendant to the plaintiff was found very relevant, in this context. It reiterated the view approved by the House of Lords that "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 1 PW-1 admitted that he had made payment of Rs. 13,26,200/- to defendant company as mentioned in para no. 14 of this judgment.
Suit No. 2124/2016 Mohd. Azam Bitto Vs Aluco Panels Limited Page No. 12 of 17 pages 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." These observations apply, a fortiori, where the goods supplied were according to the specifications, and their price had been substantially paid. Autovesl and Isogen were ordered by name, and were supplied. Due to reasons of obsolescence. Pvelite was subsequently preferred by the defendant, but this preference cannot be considered as a valid defence for withholding payment. It would still be so even if either Autovesl or Isogen proved to be of little usefulness to the defendant, so long as what was supplied strictly corresponded to these two programmes/merchandise. Chapter IV of the Act must be kept in mind when disputes of the present nature call to be decided. In particular, Section 34 envisages that delivery of even a part of the goods would operate as a delivery of the whole, unless the former is clearly severed from the rest. The defendant/applicant should have recorded a caveat that the software could be treated as having been accepted only upon delivery of pvelite. This could not be possible since pvelite was not part of the contract. Alternatively, the defendant/applicant could have declined to accept the part delivery if that is how it viewed the situation. The intervening period of several months is significant and clearly fatal to the projected defence. The offer to supply pvelite cannot have the effect of invalidating the initial contract.
13. Is the Court expected to take into consideration the dealings inter se the defendant/applicant and its customer, namely FACT. The purchase Order of FACT on the defendant is dated 20th July, 1994; the plaintiff is not even mentioned therein. Thereafter the defendant has issued its purchase order dated 2nd August, 1994 to the plaintiff at its New Delhi office and payment was to be made by the defendant. FEDO was only mentioned in the context of delivery. The plaintiff's invoice was issued to the defendant, which was liable to clear the consideration and has in fact made substantial payments. Although in the delivery clause there is an indirect mention that FEDO can claim damages for late supply by the defendant, and that the latter can make a corresponding claim on the plaintiff, the present dispute raised by the defendant at best concerns unsuitability of the software, and not late supply thereof. The defendant has placed reliance Suit No. 2124/2016 Mohd. Azam Bitto Vs Aluco Panels Limited Page No. 13 of 17 pages on correspondence exchanged between itself and FEDO which is one year (Annexure-B) and two year later (Annexure-C). Such events cannot be taken into contemplation in an action for the price of goods, where the property in the goods has passed to the buyer and the buyer wrongfully neglects or "refuses to pay for the goods according to the terms of the contract" (see Section 55 of the Act). Sections 41 and 42 of the Act conjointly indicate that if defects in the goods are not recorded within a reasonable time, they will have been deemed to have been accepted. Furthermore, by making substantial payments for the price of the goods the defendant has acted in a manner which would render it inconsistent for the plaintiff to still claim ownership thereon. On a careful reading of the Act, it appears that the intendment is generally that the price of the goods must be paid and if there is a subsequent defect (in contradistinction to a defect detected within a reasonable time of the delivery) the remedy that is envisaged is for the Buyer to sue for damages. This is obviously impregnated with sound commonsense and business ethics. In the present case, raising questions pertaining to the suitability of the supply after one year is not reasonable. A triable issue does not arise because what was supplied by the plaintiff was what was ordered by the defendant, if it did not suit the latter's requirements the plaintiff cannot be made responsible and liable. Significantly, it has not been shown that any legal action has been fled even by FEDO for recovery of damages from the defendant. Some prima facie evidence of such an action should have been filed by the defendant to justify the grant of leave to defend".
21. Thus, it is amply clear that when property in goods passes to the buyer / plaintiff and the plaintiff within a reasonable time does not get back to the defendant with regard to any defect, he is bound to make payment of the entire price. Furthermore, when the plaintiff makes substantial payment for the price of goods and he has acted in a manner which would render it inconsistent for the defendant to claim ownership thereon; then the former / plaintiff cannot withhold the remaining payment.
Suit No. 2124/2016 Mohd. Azam Bitto Vs Aluco Panels Limited Page No. 14 of 17 pages
22. For the aforesaid multiple reasons, the court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that the goods were defective. Consequently, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 6 lakhs.
23. A sum of Rs.3 lakhs has been claimed by the plaintiff for loss of his reputation/goodwill. For completion of tort of defamation, the plaintiff was required to prove that the action of defendant exposed him to hatred, ridicule, contempt or obloquy or tend to injured the plaintiff in his profession or trade or cause the plaintiff to be shunned or avoided by the society.
24. In the plaint, there are no facts constituting a cause of action as to how plaintiff has been defamed or plaintiff has suffered loss of reputation and goodwill. Where relief is sought on the basis of the alleged defamation or loss of goodwill of the plaintiff with respect to any defamation, there has to be entire set of facts which are required to be stated in view of Order VI Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for claiming any damages with respect to defamation or loss of goodwill.
25. Neither plaintiff nor his witnesses have deposed that the plaintiff has been brought down in the estimation of his customers after supply of defective goods by the defendant. No independent witness from the same profession / trade has been examined to prove that the reputation of plaintiff has lowered down in the society, subsequent to use of alleged defective goods. A bald statement made in the plaint, including in the relief clause, of loss of goodwill and reputation, thus, cannot be a basis for grant of damages. The plaintiff is also not entitled to recover the amount of Rs. 3 lakhs.
Suit No. 2124/2016 Mohd. Azam Bitto Vs Aluco Panels Limited Page No. 15 of 17 pages
26. The main thrust of argument on behalf of plaintiff is that the defendant has not been able to prove its case as the AR of defendant admitted, in his cross examination, that he has no knowledge regarding the trasaction between the parties, thus, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree forthwith.
27. This argument lacks merit. The fact that the defendant has not been able to establish its defense does not mean that plaintiff's case stands proved. The plaintiff has to stand on his own legs. Consequently defendant's failure to prove pleas made in the WS cannot advance plaintiff's case. Decisions reported as Sankar Kumar & Anr. vs. Mohanlal Sharma, AIR 1998 Orissa 117; Shiv Nandan Sachdeva (Sh.) vs. Smt. Ruby, 2009 V (Delhi) 55; Umesh Bondre vs. Wilfred Fernandes, AIR 2007 Bom 29; M. P. Narayan vs. Sm. Sudhadevi & Ors., AIR 1986 Cal 256; State of West Bengal vs. Subimal Kumar Mondal & Anr., AIR 1982 Cal 251 and Sayed Muhammed Mashur Kunhi Koya Thangal vs. Badagara Jumayath, JT 2004 (6) SC 556 can be referred to for the proposition that plaintiff cannot succeed on the basis of defendant's failure and the plaintiff must stand on its own legs.
28. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the court is of the opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover any amount from the defendant company.
Issue no. (i) is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant company.
Issue No. (ii). Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest, if so, at what rate ?
29. The onus to prove the said issue is upon the plaintiff. The outcome of issue no. (i), a fortiori, entails that the Suit No. 2124/2016 Mohd. Azam Bitto Vs Aluco Panels Limited Page No. 16 of 17 pages plaintiff is not entitled to any interest.
Issue no. (ii) is answered against the plaintiff and in favour of defendant company.
Issue no. (iii). Whether the suit of the plaintiff is based upon false and frivolous allegations and the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts as alleged in the WS ? OPD
30. The onus to prove this issue is upon the defendant. The defendant, in para no. 3 of preliminary objections of the written statement, has alleged that the plaintiff has suppressed material facts from this court as he has not disclosed about dishonor of the cheques and complaint case under Section 138 of N.I. Act being filed against him. The plaintiff, in para no. 9, of his plaint has disclosed that the cheques in question have been misused and two cases have been filed against him by the defendant company. Consequently, the plaintiff cannot be held guilty of suppression of material facts from this court. It is another matter that the plaintiff, on merits, could not establish his case.
Issue no. (iii) is disposed off.
Relief:
In view of reasons and findings on Issue No. (i) and
(ii), the suit of plaintiff is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (SHUCHI LALER)
on this day of 16.10.2018 ADJ-04, East District
KKD Courts, Delhi
SHUCHI Digitally signed by SHUCHI
LALER
LALER Date: 2018.10.16 16:07:41
+0530
Suit No. 2124/2016 Mohd. Azam Bitto Vs Aluco Panels Limited Page No. 17 of 17 pages