Delhi District Court
Sh. Niranjan Goel vs . Raj Malhotra & Anr. Judgement Dt. ... on 14 October, 2015
Sh. Niranjan Goel Vs. Raj Malhotra & Anr. Judgement dt. 14.10.2015
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE13, CENTRAL,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS No. 11/2014
Sh. Niranjan Goel
Proprietor of M/s Daulat Ram & Sons
3198, First Floor, Shri Balaji Market,
Gali Rajawali, Peepal Mahadev,
Hauz Qazi, Delhi110006. .....Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sh. Raj Malhotra
Proprietor of M/s Ist Alarm System
357, F.I.E. Industrial Estate,
Patparganj, Delhi110092.
Also at
S524, Neelkanth House, Shakarpur,
Delhi110092.
Also at
R/o 175, Megha Apartments,
Mayur Vihar, PhaseI, Delhi.
2. Sh. Prem Malhotra
S/o Late Sh. Ganga Bishan Malhotra
R/o 175, Megha Apartments,
Mayur Vihyar, PhaseI, Delhi. .....Defendants
Date of institution : 20.2.2014
Date of arguments : 7.10.2015
Date of judgement : 14.10.2015
JUDGEMENT
1. By way of this judgement, I shall dispose of the application for leave to defend under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) CPC filed by CS No. 11/2014 Page 1 / 8 Sh. Niranjan Goel Vs. Raj Malhotra & Anr. Judgement dt. 14.10.2015 the defendant no.1.
2. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.
15,24,250/ alongwith interest under Order 37 CPC. It is stated in the plaint that during the financial year 20112012 & 20122013 the plaintiff had supplied the material of the defendants worth Rs.16,62,982/ and Rs.30,64,773/ respectively. As per the books of accounts of the plaintiff which is being maintained in the normal course of business. In the said books all the entries for purchase and sale books are duly recorded. It is further stated that during the financial year 201213 the plaintiff raised the following invoices/bills through which the plaintiff sold goods worth Rs.30,64,773/ on credit as per the requirement of the defendants as follows : Bill No. Date Amount 518 19.05.2012 19,49,756/ 519 19.05.2012 8,70,849/ 522 21.05.2012 5,33,723/ 545 04.07.2012 10,445/ Total 30,64,773/
3. It is stated in the plaint that the said goods were supplied to the satisfaction of the defendants. However, the defendants CS No. 11/2014 Page 2 / 8 Sh. Niranjan Goel Vs. Raj Malhotra & Anr. Judgement dt. 14.10.2015 failed to make payment of the full amount. Therefore, there was an outstanding balance amount of Rs. 10,92,982/ as on 1st April, 2012. It is further submitted that thereafter the goods worth Rs. 30,64,773/ were further supplied to the defendants. Thus, total outstanding amount came to Rs. 41,57,755/ against which defendant no.1 made the part payment of Rs. 30,36,981/ leaving an outstanding amount of Rs. 11,20,774/. On 11.12.2012 defendant no.1 issued four cheques totaling to Rs. 9,60,000/ towards part payment of the liability. The details of the cheques issues are as under :
Date Cheque Amount
No. (Rs.)
11.12.2012 974228 4,00,000.00
11.12.2012 974229 2,00,000.00
11.12.2012 974230 2,00,000.00
11.12.2012 974234 1,60,000.00
Total 9,60,000.00
4. However, all the cheques were dishonoured by the bank of the defendants on account of "exceeds arrangement" vide memo dated 13.12.2012. It is further stated that as per the books of CS No. 11/2014 Page 3 / 8 Sh. Niranjan Goel Vs. Raj Malhotra & Anr. Judgement dt. 14.10.2015 account of defendant the outstanding amount of Rs.11,20,774/ is outstanding towards the plaintiff. Hence, this suit under Order 37 CPC vide which the plaintiffs are claiming recovery of amount of Rs. 15,24,250/ inclusive of the principal amount of Rs. 11,20,774/ alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum w.e.f. 7.12.2012 till filing of the suit, which amounts to Rs.4,03, 476/. Plaintiff has further claimed pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing the suit till realization, as well as the costs of the suit.
5. It has been contended by the defendant no.1 in its application for leave to defend that the cheques were given to the plaintiff as a security and were misused by the plaintiff. It was further stated that defendant no.1 never paid any money to the plaintiff through cheques and all payments were made by it through RTGS and therefore cheques were only supplied to the plaintiff as a security by way of abundant caution. The defendant also submits that as per plaint itself, defendant no.1 has already made payment of Rs. 30,36,981/. through RTGS. Further, the alleged balance of Rs. 10,92,982/ for the financial year 2012 is reflected in an uncertified ledger account of the plaintiff and thus cannot be relied upon. The defendant also CS No. 11/2014 Page 4 / 8 Sh. Niranjan Goel Vs. Raj Malhotra & Anr. Judgement dt. 14.10.2015 further states that the plaintiff has concealed the committee/Chit Funds amount which were deposited by the defendant no.1 on monthly basis. He further submits that defendant No.1 was the member of committee/Chit Fund of Rs. 40,00,000/ of 20 members and it was being run by the plaintiff. It is further submitted that defendant no.1 was depositing the Committee/Chit installments per month after adjusting the loss/bid amount and paid seven installments in cash and thereafter stopped to pay, when he received assurances from the plaintiff to adjust the same against the outstanding bill. However, the said amount was not adjusted by plaintiff in the ledger account. Copy of which is annexed with the application.
6. It is further argued by Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1 that the outstanding balance amount of Rs. 10,92,982/ as on 1.4.2012 as alleged by the plaintiff is not duly supported by documents/invoices. Defendant no.1 has also disputed tax invoice no. 545 dated 4.7.2012 as allegedly no material was supplied to the defendants by the plaintiff against the said invoice.
7. Reply to this application was filed by the plaintiff denying the allegations in the counter affidavit.
CS No. 11/2014 Page 5 / 8Sh. Niranjan Goel Vs. Raj Malhotra & Anr. Judgement dt. 14.10.2015
8. I have considered the submissions of Ld. Counsels. Since the defendant has disputed the computer print outs of the ledger, I am not inclined to consider the same, especially in view of the fact that the same are not supported with an affidavit. However, the certified copies of the cheques and cheque returning memo mentioned above have been filed. I may point out that as per plaintiff, the original of these documents have been filed in the court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, where the plaintiff has filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. Therefore, I will directly come to the issue of the cheques in question.
9. Defendant has not disputed that he had issued these cheques to the concern of the plaintiff namely M/s Daulat Ram & Sons. In his entire affidavit filed in support of his application to defend, he has not stated that these cheques were not signed by him. The business transactions between the parties have not been denied. His stand is that he made all the payments through RTGS and he was not making payments through cheques and that the cheques in question were issued for the purpose of security, which were misused by the plaintiff. Defendant admitted that the legal notice sent by the plaintiff CS No. 11/2014 Page 6 / 8 Sh. Niranjan Goel Vs. Raj Malhotra & Anr. Judgement dt. 14.10.2015 (para g of the affidavit). However, no explanation has been given by the defendant no.1 as to why he did not sent a reply to this notice to plaintiff. Therefore, it is clear that the defence of defendant no.1 that he had given the cheques in question as security has no substance.
10. The second defence is that defendant no.1 was a member of Chit Fund Committee run by the plaintiff. Plaintiff has filed a computer print out of statement of account to show the cash payments against the Committee. I may point out that this computer print out is also not supported with a certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. Further, it is unilateral statement of account unsigned by the plaintiff and therefore cannot be accepted. Defendant no.1 could not place on record even a single document/receipt to prove any payments to the said Chit Fund. Further, the transactions of Chit Fund and the business transactions in question cannot be mingled.
11. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that defendant no.1 has no defence. Hence, his application for leave to defend the suit is hereby dismissed.
12. Vide separate order suit against defendant no.2 has already been dismissed/rejected.
CS No. 11/2014 Page 7 / 8Sh. Niranjan Goel Vs. Raj Malhotra & Anr. Judgement dt. 14.10.2015
13. Consequently, based upon the dishonoured cheques described as above, I pass a decree in the sum of Rs.9,60,000/ payable by defendant no.1 to the plaintiff along with the interest at the rate of 18% per annum w.e.f. 11.12.2012 till the realization of the decretal amount. Costs of the suit are also awarded to the plaintiff. Suit against defendant no.2 is dismissed. Decree sheet be prepared. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open (Vinod Kumar) court on 14.10.2015. Additional District Judge13, (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CS No. 11/2014 Page 8 / 8