Delhi District Court
Rahul Dev vs Inkarp Instruments Pvt Ltd on 18 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIL KUMAR PASWAN, DISTRICT
JUDGE-04 (EAST), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
Suit No. 254/2016 (Old No. 189/12)
Sh. Rahul Dev
Prop. of M/s. Harmony Life Care Inc.
R/o Dev Niwas, Flat No. 606, 6th Floor,
Shipra Reveria Tower, Gyankhand-III,
Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, U.P.
...........Plaintiff
Versus
1. M/s Inkarp Instruments Private Limited
Through its Director Mr. K. Natesh
1-2-45/1 Street No. 2, Kak Tiya Nagar Colony,
Habsiguda, Hyderabad-500-007.
2. M/s Inkarp Instruments Private Limited
Through its regional Director Mr. M. Madhusudan
302, III Floor V4, Mayur Plaza-1,
Dda Local Shopping Center
Mayur Vihar Phase-I, Delhi-110091.
3. Mr. K. Natesh (Director)
M/s Inkarp Instruments Private Limited
1-2-45/1 Street No. 2, Kak Tiya Nagar Colony,
Habsiguda, Hyderabad-500007.
...........Defendants
Date of Institution : 04.07.2012
Date of final arguments : 15.02.2025
Date of decision : 18.02.2025
Final decision : Decreed
CS no. 254/16 Rahul Dev VS Inkarp Instruments Pvt Ltd Page no. 1 of 28
Digitally signed
by ANIL
ANIL KUMAR
KUMAR PASWAN
PASWAN Date:
2025.02.18
14:53:30 +0530
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
1. The present suit has been filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 8,74,905/- along with interest and further pendente lite and future interest @ 18% p.a.
2. It is the case of plaintiff that the defendant is into the business of sales and marketing of MOTIC brand products and plaintiff is into the business of trading and is having vast experience in the field of sales and marketing of microscopes and they had been appointed by the defendants as distributors for the area of Western Uttar Pradesh for sells and supply of various kind of product of MOTIC. At the time of appointment, it was assured by defendant no. 2 that integrated sales team of defendant no. 1 headed by defendant no. 4 will be made available for assistance in procuring purchase order and disposal of all products and therefore, plaintiff was asked to purchase in bulk with the view to achieve sells target.
3. It is submitted that since the date of appointment, defendants never initiated any steps for plaintiff in procuring purchase orders despite repeated requests and reminder by plaintiff. Due to this CS no. 254/16 Rahul Dev VS Inkarp Instruments Pvt Ltd Page no. 2 of 28 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR KUMAR PASWAN PASWAN Date:
2025.02.18 14:53:35 +0530 deadstock in the shape of old model products got stuck in the godown of the plaintiff having value of Rs. 5,52,100/- since 26.04.2010. For that purpose, defendants were asked to provide Form F so that the deadstock can be sent back to defendant no. 1, however, the same form was not provided. Emails were also sent in this regard.
4. That defendant under the garb of company policy asked the plaintiff time and again to submit the EMD & tender fees. Even then, credit notes were not issued in favour of the plaintiff pertaining to the payments made by plaintiff for the tender fees & EMD. As per the directions, plaintiff was forced to pay Rs. 5,000/- with IVRI on 05.09.2009, Rs. 24,000/- with HLL Ltd, in October 2010, Rs. 50,000/- with Sardar Valabh Bhai Patel University of Agriculture and Technology, Meerut along with Rs. 3,000/- on account of tender form and processing charges since 18.12.2010, Rs. 1,000/- with Mathura Veterinary College since 09.08.2011 totalling to a sum of Rs. 83,000/-. Further, the plaintiff stated to be entitled for realization of interest @18% on the said amount from the respective dates of payment made by plaintiff.
5. Due to bad system adopted by defendant no. 1 & 2 for supply against the purchase order, bills were raised but products were not supplied properly. The defendants did not give the refund of Rs. 25,490/- for short supply against invoice no. 892 dated 16.06.2010 and defendants illegally retained the money of plaintiff CS no. 254/16 Rahul Dev VS Inkarp Instruments Pvt Ltd Page no. 3 of 28 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR PASWAN KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.02.18 14:53:39 +0530 despite telephones reminder and mails. Further, the defendant is also liable to pay interest @18% on that amount.
6. The plaintiff also demanded refund of Rs. 37,426/- as outstanding balance with the defendant no. 1 since 13.08.2010.
Legal notice was given on 13.03.2012 with a request to pay a sum of Rs. 5,52,100/- along with interest @18% and Rs. 86,000/- on account of earnest money/tender charges, etc along with @18% and Rs. 25,490/- on account of short supply along with interest @18%.
7. The plaintiff has in detail provided the breakup of money claimed in the suit which is total Rs. 8,74,905/-.
WS OF DEFENDANTS
8. Joint WS was filed by defendant no. 1 to 4 and it was stated that the present suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff has concealed material facts and also plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit. Further, there was no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff as this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit as the agreement was executed at Hyderabad.
9. It is submitted that defendant no. 1 is a main distributor for speed fair limited situated at Hyderabad. They had decided to have a dealer for a Motic Microscope across the country and for that CS no. 254/16 Rahul Dev VS Inkarp Instruments Pvt Ltd Page no. 4 of 28 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR PASWAN KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.02.18 14:53:44 +0530 purpose, plaintiff has approached the defendants and expressed his interest to be a dealer and accordingly they were appointed as channel partners. As per the agreement, the plaintiff was to promote and sell the Motic brand of microscopes and there was no agreement/assurance by the defendant for sale of their stocks. Further, the defendants were to provide technical support to the plaintiff only and not to sell any product for the plaintiff.
10. On the request of plaintiff and purchase order, defendant supplied equipments on credit and the plaintiff had dues of an amount of Rs. 3,55,031/- since 05.01.2011. It is submitted that the goods were sold to the plaintiff and there was no transfer of stock. However, it is submitted that after placing the order, the plaintiff has not made any effort to sell the material which is in the possession of the plaintiff and plaintiff has not returned the same to the answering defendants. That the plaintiff now only in order to harass, blackmail and extort the defendants, have filed the present suit, knowing well that the defendants have no dues however the plaintiff having liability to pay the amount to the defendants.
REPLICATION
11. Replication was filed to the joint written statement of the defendants, wherein the plaintiff has reaffirmed and reiterated the contents of the plaint and have denied the contents of the joint written statement of the defendants. Further, it was submitted that CS no. 254/16 Rahul Dev VS Inkarp Instruments Pvt Ltd Page no. 5 of 28 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR KUMAR PASWAN PASWAN Date:
2025.02.18 14:53:50 +0530 there were vague allegations from defendant and the suit could be filed as this Court has jurisdiction as regional director of defendant no. 1 was operating from his office situated within the jurisdiction of this court.
ISSUES
12. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues have been framed for trial on dated 30.10.2018:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.8,74,905/ ? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so, at what rate and for which period? OPP
3. Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPDs
4. Relief PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
13. In order to prove his case, plaintiff has examined himself as PW1 by way of his affidavit in evidence Ex.PW1/A. He has relied on the following documents on 10.12.2018:-
1. Copy of purchase order dated 29.12.2009 is Ex.PW1/1 (OSR);
2. Copy of purchase order dated 23.04.2010 and 24.04.2010 are Ex.PW1/2 (colly)
3. Copy of purchase order dated 30.06.2010 is Ex.PW1/3;
4. Copy of tax invoice dated 20.04.2009 is Ex.PW1/4;
CS no. 254/16 Rahul Dev VS Inkarp Instruments Pvt Ltd Page no. 6 of 28 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR KUMAR PASWAN PASWAN Date:
2025.02.18 14:53:55 +0530
5. Copy of tax invoice dated 05.01.2011 is Ex.PW1/5;
6. Copy of tax invoice dated 14.02.2011 is Ex.PW1/6;
7. Copy of letter vide Ref No. BPL/PK/10-11/0121 dated 18.02.2011 is Ex.PW1/7;
8. Copy of reply of email dated 15.09.2010 is Ex.PW1/8;
(Objected to by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
9. Copy of letter vide Ref No. RD/Ven/IIPL/COR/1005 dated 26.04.2010 is Ex.PW1/9;
10. Copy of letter vide Ref No. RD/Ven/IIPL/COR/10019 dated 08.07.2010 is Ex.PW1/10;
11. Copy of letter vide Ref No. RD/Ven/IIPL/COR/1045 dated 01.12.2010 is Ex.PW1/11;
12. Copy of letter vide Ref No. RD/Ven/IIPL/COR/1046 dated 01.12.2010 is Ex.PW1/12;
13. Copy of letter vide Ref No. RD/Ven/IIPL/COR/1052 dated 01.12.2010 is Ex.PW1/13;
14. Copy of letter vide Ref No. RD/Ven/IIPL/COR/1011 dated 01.07.2011 is Ex.PW1/14;
15. Copy of letter vide Ref No. RD/Ven/IIPL/Mot/HCL/GSS/2612- 7/11-12 dated 26.12.2011 is Ex.PW1/15;
16. Copy of purchase debit note dated 01.03.2011 is Ex.PW1/16;
17. Copy of letter vide Ref No. RD/Ven/IIPL/COR/11050 dated 09.01.2012 is Ex.PW1/17;
18. Copy of ledger details dated 31.03.2011 from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011 is Ex.PW1/18;
19. Copy of tax invoice dated 21.05.2010 is Ex.PW1/19;
20. Copy of purchase debit note dated 29.12.2009 is Ex.PW1/20;
CS no. 254/16 Rahul Dev VS Inkarp Instruments Pvt Ltd Page no. 7 of 28
Digitally
signed by
ANIL ANIL KUMAR
PASWAN
KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.02.18
14:53:59
+0530
21. Copy of tax invoice dated 15.06.2010 is Ex.PW1/21;
22. Copy of tax invoice dated 11.08.2010 is Ex.PW1/22;
23. Copy of tax invoice dated 30.07.2010 is Ex.PW1/23;
24. Copy of IIPL account settlement email conversation dated 10.08.2011 is Ex.PW1/24; (Objected to by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
25. Copy of purchase order dated 24.04.2010 is Ex.PW1/25;
26. Copy of tax invoice dated 14.02.2011 is Ex.PW1/26;
27. Copy of IIPL account settlement email conversation dated 10.08.2011 is Ex.PW1/27; (objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
28. Copy of purchase order dated 07.02.2010 is Ex.PW1/28;
29. Copy of tax invoice dated 17.02.2011 is Ex.PW1/29;
30. Copy of IIPL account settlement email conversation dated 19.08.2011 is Ex.PW1/30; (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on he ground of mode of proof).
31. Copy of purchase order dated 20.01.2011 is Ex.PW1/31;
32. Copy of debit note dated 31.03.2011 is Ex.PW1/32;
33. Copy of terms and conditions is Ex.PW1/33;
34. Copy of ledger details dated 13.10.2011 from 01.04.2011 to 13.08.2011 is Ex.PW1/34;
35. Copy of tax invoice dated 24.05.2011 is Ex.PW1/35;
36. Copy of purchase order dated 04.04.2011 is Ex.PW1/36;
37. Copy of tax invoice dated 31.05.2011 is Ex.PW1/37;
38. Copy of purchase order dated 13.05.2011 is Ex.PW1/38;
39. Copy of IIPL account settlement email conversation dated 06.06.2009 is Ex.PW1/39; (objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
CS no. 254/16 Rahul Dev VS Inkarp Instruments Pvt Ltd Page no. 8 of 28 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR PASWAN KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.02.18 14:54:04 +0530
40. Copy of IIPL account settlement email conversation dated 16.06.2009 is Ex.PW1/40; (objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
41. Copy of IIPL account settlement email conversation dated 26.03.2010 is Ex.PW1/41; (objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
42. Copy of IIPL account settlement email conversation dated 05.04.2010 is Ex.PW1/42; (objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
43. Copy of purchase order dated 09.03.2010 is Ex.PW1/43;
44. Copy of IIPL account settlement email conversation dated 06.04.2010 is Ex.PW1/44.
45. Copy of IIPL account settlement email conversation dated
07.04.2010 is Ex.PW1/45;(Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
46. Copy of purchase order along with terms and conditions dated 29.03.2010 is Ex.PW1/46;
47. Copy of IIPL account settlement email conversation dated 07.04.2010 is Ex.PW1/47;(Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
48. Copy of IIPL account settlement email conversation dated 13.04.2010 is Ex.PW1/48; (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
49. Copy of IIPL account settlement email conversation dated 24.05.2010 is Ex.PW1/49; (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
50. Copy of IIPL account settlement email conversation dated 10.06.2010 is Ex.PW1/50; (Objected by ld. Counsel for the CS no. 254/16 Rahul Dev VS Inkarp Instruments Pvt Ltd Page no. 9 of 28 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR PASWAN KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.02.18 14:54:09 +0530 defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
51. Copy of IIPL account settlement email conversation dated 24.06.2010 is Ex.PW1/51(containing 3 pages); (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
52. Copy of IIPL account settlement email conversation dated 24.06.2010 is Ex.PW1/52; (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
53. Copy of IIPL account settlement email conversation dated 25.06.2010 is Ex.PW1/53 (containing 2 pages); (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
54. Copy of IIPL account settlement email conversation dated 12.07.2010 is Ex.PW1/54; (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
55. Copy of IIPL account settlement email conversation dated 17.07.2010 is Ex.PW1/55; (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
56. Copy of IIPL account settlement email conversation dated 03.09.2010 is Ex.PW1/56; (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
57. Copy of details of ledger account of defendant for 2010-2011 is Ex.PW1/57; (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
58. Copy of IIPL account settlement email conversation dated 17.12.2010 is Ex.PW1/58 (containing two pages); (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
59. Copy of IIPL account settlement email conversation dated 23.12.2010 is Ex.PW1/59 (containing two pages); (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
CS no. 254/16 Rahul Dev VS Inkarp Instruments Pvt Ltd Page no. 10 of 28 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR PASWAN KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.02.18 14:54:15 +0530
60. Copy of IIPL account settlement email conversation dated 28.12.2010 is Ex.PW1/60; (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
61. Copy of IIPL account settlement email conversation dated 23.01.2011 is Ex.PW1/61 (containing two pages); (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
62. Copy of IIPL account settlement email conversation dated 25.03.2011 is Ex.PW1/62; (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
63. Copy of debit note vide reference no. DN/201011001 dated 01.03.2011 is Ex.PW1/63;
64. Copy of debit note vide reference no. DN/201011002 dated 01.03.2011 is Ex.PW1/64;
65. Copy of debit note vide reference no. DN/2010 11003 dated 01.03.2011 is Ex.PW1/65;
66. Copy of debit note vide reference no. DN/2010 11004 dated 01.03.2011 is Ex.PW1/66;
67. Copy of IIPL account 2010-2011 dated 21.03.2011 is Ex.PW1/67;
(Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
68. Copy of IIPL account settlement email conversation dated 25.03.2011 is Ex.PW1/68 (containing two pages); (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
69. Copy of IIPL account settlement email conversation dated 25.03.2011 is Ex.PW1/69 (containing three pages); (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
70. Copy of IIPL account settlement email conversation dated 11.04.2011 is Ex.PW1/70 (containing two pages); (Objected by CS no. 254/16 Rahul Dev VS Inkarp Instruments Pvt Ltd Page no. 11 of 28 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR PASWAN KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.02.18
14:54:20
+0530
ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
71. Copy of IIPL account settlement email conversation dated 20.04.2011 is Ex.PW1/71 (containing four pages); (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
72. Copy of IIPL account settlement email conversation dated 16.06.2011 is Ex.PW1/72 (containing three pages); (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
73. Copy of IIPL account settlement email conversation dated 16.06.2011 is Ex.PW1/73 (containing two pages); (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
74. Copy of IIPL account settlement email conversation dated 02.07.2011 is Ex.PW1/74 (containing two pages); (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
75. Copy of IIPL account settlement email conversation dated 02.07.2011 is Ex.PW1/75 (containing four pages); (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
76. Copy of IIPL account settlement email conversation dated 22.07.2011 is Ex.PW1/76; (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
77. Copy of IIPL account settlement email conversation dated 23.07.2011 is Ex.PW1/77 (containing 3 pages); (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
78. Copy of IIPL account settlement email conversation dated 23.07.2011 is Ex.PW1/78 (containing two pages); (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
79. Copy of IIPL account settlement email conversation dated 28.07.2011 is Ex.PW1/79 (containing two pages); (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
CS no. 254/16 Rahul Dev VS Inkarp Instruments Pvt Ltd Page no. 12 of 28
Digitally
signed by
ANIL ANIL KUMAR
PASWAN
KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.02.18
14:54:25
+0530
80. Copy of IIPL account settlement email conversation dated 22.07.2011 is Ex.PW1/80 (containing two pages); (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
81. Copy of IIPL account settlement email conversation dated 29.07.2011 is Ex.PW1/81 (containing two pages); (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
82. Copy of IIPL account settlement email conversation dated 23.07.2011 is Ex.PW1/82 (containing three pages); (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
83. Copy of IIPL account settlement email conversation dated 03.08.2011 is Ex.PW1/83; (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
84. Copy of purchase return note dated dated 03.08.2011 is Ex.PW1/84; (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
85. Copy of debit note vide reference no. DN/2011 12001 dated 03.08.2011 is Ex.PW1/85;
86. Copy of debit note vide reference no. DN/2011 12002 dated 03.08.2011 is Ex.PW1/86;
87. Copy of IIPL account settlement email conversation dated 05.08.2011 is Ex.PW1/87; (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
88. Copy of IIPL account settlement email conversation dated 06.08.2011 is Ex.PW1/88 (containing two pages); (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
89. Copy of IIPL account settlement email conversation dated 10.08.2011 is Ex.PW1/89 (containing two pages); (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
CS no. 254/16 Rahul Dev VS Inkarp Instruments Pvt Ltd Page no. 13 of 28
Digitally
signed by
ANIL
ANIL KUMAR
KUMAR PASWAN
PASWAN Date:
2025.02.18
14:54:29
+0530
90. Copy of IIPL account settlement email conversation dated 10.08.2011 is Ex.PW1/90 (containing six pages); (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
91. Copy of IIPL account settlement email conversation dated 20.08.2011 is Ex.PW1/91 (containing five pages); (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
92. Copy of IIPL account settlement email conversation dated 20.08.2011 is Ex.PW1/92 (containing three pages); (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
93. Copy of IIPL account settlement email conversation dated 20.08.2011 is Ex.PW1/93 (containing eight pages); (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
94. Copy of IIPL account settlement email conversation dated 08.10.2011 is Ex.PW1/94 (containing four pages); (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
95. Copy of Rule 12 of Central sells Tax (Registration & Turnover) Rules 1957 is Ex.PW1/95 (containing four pages); (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
96. Copy of IIPL account settlement email conversation dated 19.10.2011 is Ex.PW1/96 (containing two pages) (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
97. Copy of IIPL account settlement email conversation dated 28.11.2011 is Ex.PW1/97 (containing six pages) (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
98. Copy of IIPL account settlement email conversation dated 28.11.2011 is Ex.PW1/98 (containing four pages) (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
99. Copy of IIPL account settlement email conversation dated CS no. 254/16 Rahul Dev VS Inkarp Instruments Pvt Ltd Page no. 14 of 28 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR PASWAN KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.02.18 14:54:33 +0530 29.11.2011 is Ex.PW1/99 (containing six pages) (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
100. Copy of SVBPUAT Tender conversation dated 09.12.2010 is Ex.PW1/100 (containing six pages) (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
101. Copy of authorization letter in favour of financial comptroller is Ex.PW1/101.
102. Copy of SVBPUAT Tender conversation dated 13.12.2010 is Ex.PW1/102 (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
103. Copy of SVBPUAT Tender conversation dated 14.12.2010 is Ex.PW1/103 (containing 2 pages) (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
104. Copy of SVBPUAT Tender conversation dated 14.01.2011 is Ex.PW1/104 (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
105. Copy of letter dated 18.12.2010 is Ex.PW1/105 (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
106. Copy of IVRI EMD Refund email table is Ex.PW1/106 (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
107. Copy of IVRI EMD Refund dated 29.05.2009 is Ex.PW1/107 (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
108. Copy of letter dated 29.05.2009 vide reference no.
IIPL/PK/MOT/2009/010 is Ex.PW1/108 (containing two pages) (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
CS no. 254/16 Rahul Dev VS Inkarp Instruments Pvt Ltd Page no. 15 of 28 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR PASWAN KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.02.18 14:54:39 +0530
109. Copy of IVRI EMD Refund dated 06.06.2009 is Ex.PW1/109 (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
110. Copy of Price Bid dated 01.06.2009 vide reference no.
IIPL/PK/MOT/2009/14 is Ex.PW1/110 (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
111. Copy of Price Bid dated 01.06.2009 vide reference no.
IIPL/PK/MOT/2009/15 is Ex.PW1/111 (containing three pages) (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
112. Copy of Technical Bid dated 01.06.2009 vide reference no. IIPL/PK/MOT/2009/14A is Ex.PW1/112 (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
113. Copy of Technical Bid dated 01.06.2009 vide reference no. IIPL/PK/MOT/2009/15A is Ex.PW1/113 (containing 3 pages) (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
114. Copy of IVRI EMD Refund conversation dated 04.06.2009 is Ex.PW1/114 (containing 2 pages) (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
115. Copy of IVRI EMD Refund conversation dated 04.06.2009 is Ex.PW1/115 (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
116. Copy of IVRI EMD Refund conversation dated 26.08.2010 is Ex.PW1/116 (containing 8 pages) (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
117. Copy of IVRI EMD Refund conversation dated 14.09.2010 is Ex.PW1/117 (containing 2 pages) (Objected by ld.
CS no. 254/16 Rahul Dev VS Inkarp Instruments Pvt Ltd Page no. 16 of 28 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR PASWAN KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.02.18 14:54:44 +0530 Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
118. Copy of IVRI EMD Refund conversation dated
15.09.2010 is Ex.PW1/118 (containing 7 pages) (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
119. Copy of IVRI EMD Refund conversation dated 10.10.2010 is Ex.PW1/119 (containing 4 pages) (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
120. Copy of IVRI EMD Refund conversation dated 19.10.2010 is Ex.PW1/120 (containing 5 pages) (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
121. Copy of IVRI EMD Refund conversation dated 23.11.2010 is Ex.PW1/121 (containing 5 pages) (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
122. Copy of IVRI EMD Refund conversation dated 21.04.2011 is Ex.PW1/122 (containing 2 pages) (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
123. Copy of legal notice dated 13.03.2012 is Ex.PW1/123 (containing 3 pages) (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
124. Copy of Postal Receipt of speed post letter is Ex.PW1/124 (containing 4 in numbers) (Objected by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground of mode of proof).
125. Copy of letter dated 26.03.2012 vide reference no.
INKARP/KN/HL/1345/2012 is Ex.PW1/125 (containing 3 pages).
126. Copy of purchase return note dated 03.08.2011 is Ex.PW1/126;
127. Copy of letter dated 05.09.2011 is Ex.PW1/127;
CS no. 254/16 Rahul Dev VS Inkarp Instruments Pvt Ltd Page no. 17 of 28 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR PASWAN KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.02.18 14:54:49 +0530
128. Copy of debit note dated 03.08.2011 is Ex.PW1/128 (containing 2 pages);
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
14. In order to prove his case, defendant has examined himself as DW1 by way of his affidavit in evidence Ex.DW1/A. He has relied the document i.e. authority letter as Ex.DW1/1.
My observation on the above issues is as under:-
ISSUE NO. 315. Vide order dated 19.03.2016, Ld. Predecessor has decided application u/o 7 Rule 10 CPC r/w 151 CPC filed by the defendants wherein the issue regarding jurisdiction was decided and it was held that-
"In the present case, the plaintiff has relied upon the communications and e-mails exchanged between the plaintiff and defendant no. 4 at the office of defendant no.4 at Mayur Vihar, Delhi. Regional office of the defendant is also within the jurisdiction of this court".
16. Therefore, the issue regarding jurisdiction has been settled and decided in favour of the plaintiff and it was held that this court has jurisdiction to decide this case. In view of the same, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
CS no. 254/16 Rahul Dev VS Inkarp Instruments Pvt Ltd Page no. 18 of 28
Digitally
signed by
ANIL
ANIL KUMAR
KUMAR PASWAN
PASWAN Date:
2025.02.18
14:54:54
+0530
ISSUES NO. 1 & 2
17. It is submitted on behalf of defendant that there is no certificate U/sec 65B of Indian Evidence Act along with electronic records which are the email printouts on which the plaintiff is relying. The record reflects that application U/sec 151 CPC filed by plaintiff for placing on record certificate U/sec 65B of Indian Evidence Act was allowed vide order dated 18.01.2025. It is the submission from the side of defendant that the certificate is not proper as the source from where the email was downloaded i.e Gmail, other website etc. is not mentioned in the certificate, the computer name is not mentioned and also other similar grounds are taken. Per contra, Ld counsel for plaintiff submits that the certificate is appropriate and as the records are very old, therefore, some documents could not be mentioned in the certificate.
18. The certificate placed on record mentions that the printouts were taken from the computer which was under the control and under supervision of the proprietor of plaintiff. The certificate is in the form of affidavit. The matter pertains to the year 2012 and the record /emails are pertaining to the year 2011. The technology is fast changing and the computers which were used and the technology used in those computers is out dated. The certificate has been recently filed for the documents pertaining to the period 2011. Though, specific emails ID/address was not pointed out in the certificate, however those emails have been admitted by the CS no. 254/16 Rahul Dev VS Inkarp Instruments Pvt Ltd Page no. 19 of 28 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR PASWAN KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.02.18 14:55:00 +0530 defendant and I agree with the submissions of plaintiff that the record is old and there is substantial compliance of Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act keeping in view that it is a matter of procedure when the documents are already admitted by the defendant. If the documents were not admitted the situation could have been different. Therefore, this Court is satisfied with the certificate U/sec 65B of the Indian Evidence Act and through the certificate all the emails and electronic outputs have now become admissible in this case.
19. Now, in order to decide this issue, following terms and conditions are relevant in this case and the same are mentioned in the various purchase orders. Relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:-
"11. All such goods that are purchased through this PO for the purpose of "STOCK AND SALE" and are not sold beyond three months will be returned at the cost and risk of the Supplier. Any payment made for such goods returned will be recovered at the price as per the company prevailing policy at the time, including freight, taxes and levies. If such dues are not cleared with in seven days from the date of return, interest @ 24% p.a. will be charged."
"12. The supplier must acknowledge in writing the receipt of PO within 15 days from the date of PO or 7 days of its receipt. In the absence of any written acknowledgment. It will be assumed that the Supplier has accepted this PO in totality and is binding on them."
"13. Any dispute arising against this PO is subject to CS no. 254/16 Rahul Dev VS Inkarp Instruments Pvt Ltd Page no. 20 of 28 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR KUMAR PASWAN PASWAN Date:
2025.02.18 14:55:05 +0530 Ghaziabad jurisdiction."
20. Therefore, both the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of their agreement. Apart from the above terms and conditions, there are no other terms between the parties. Plaintiff has stated that it was assured by defendant no. 2 that the integrated sales team of the defendant no. 1 headed by defendant no. 4 will assist in procuring purchase orders and disposal of all models including the slow moving products and there was a mutual understanding wherein the defendant asked the plaintiff to make purchases in bulk with the view to achieve sales target, however, no steps were taken by the defendant in procuring purchase orders despite repeated reminders and therefore, there was deadstock of old model products and slow moving products got struck in the godown of the plaintiff having total value of Rs. 5,52,100/-.
21. Per contra, defendant has taken a stand that plaintiff shall promote and sell the MOTIC brand of microscopes to the end customers and it was specifically mentioned and there was no agreement or assurance given by the defendant to the plaintiff for sale of the stocks and only technical support was to be provided.
22. However, both the assurances as stated by plaintiff as well as defendant were not mentioned in any of the agreement and the various purchase vouchers containing the terms and conditions mentioned above are the only guidelines for conduct of business CS no. 254/16 Rahul Dev VS Inkarp Instruments Pvt Ltd Page no. 21 of 28 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR KUMAR PASWAN PASWAN Date:
2025.02.18 14:55:10 +0530 between the parties. In this regard, it would be relevant to take into consideration Section 91 & Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Section 91. Evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other dispositions of property reduced to form of document:-
"When the terms of a contract, or of a grant, or of any other disposition of property, have been reduced to the form of a document, and in all cases in which any matter is required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or of such matter, except the document itself, or secondary evidence of its contents in cases in which secondary evidence is admissible under the provisions hereinbefore contained.
Exception 1.-- When a public officer is required by law to be appointed in writing, and when it is shown that any particular person has acted as such officer, the writing by which he is appointed need not be proved.
Exception 2. -- Wills 1[admitted to probate in 2[India]] may be proved by the probate.
Explanation 1.-- This section applies equally to cases in which the contracts, grants or dispositions of property referred to are contained in one document and to cases in which they are contained in more documents than one.
Explanation 3. -- The statement, in any document whatever, of a fact other than the facts referred to in this section, shall not preclude the admission of oral evidence as to the same fact".
CS no. 254/16 Rahul Dev VS Inkarp Instruments Pvt Ltd Page no. 22 of 28 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR PASWAN KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.02.18 14:55:15 +0530 Section 91. Evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other dispositions of property reduced to form of document:-
"When the terms of any such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or any matter required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, have been proved according to the last section, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted, as between the parties to any such instrument or their representatives in interest, for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from, its terms:
Proviso (1). -- Any fact may be proved which would invalidate any document, or which would entitle any person to any decree or order relating thereto; such as fraud, intimidation, illegality, want of due execution, want of capacity in any contracting party, 1[want or failure] of consideration, or mistake in fact or law.
Proviso (2). -- The existence of any separate oral agreement as to any matter on which a document is silent, and which is not inconsistent with its terms, may be proved. In considering whether or not this proviso applies, the Court shall have regard to the degree of formality of the document.
Proviso (3). -- The existence of any separate oral agreement, constituting a condition precedent to the attaching of any obligation under any such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be proved.
Proviso (4). -- The existence of any distinct subsequent oral agreement to rescind or modify any such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be proved, except in cases in which such contract, grant or disposition of Proviso (5). Any usage or custom by which incidents not expressly mentioned in any contract are usually annexed to contracts of that description, CS no. 254/16 Rahul Dev VS Inkarp Instruments Pvt Ltd Page no. 23 of 28 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR PASWAN KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.02.18 14:55:20 +0530 may be proved:
Provided that the annexing of such incident would not be repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the express terms of the contract.
Proviso (6). -- Any fact may be proved which shows in what manner the language of a document is related to existing facts".
23. Therefore, when there is written contract then the parties cannot rely upon any other oral terms and conditions except as provided under the law mentioned above. In view of the same, this court can only go through the terms and conditions agreed by both the parties in a written contract. The abovementioned terms and conditions in the purchase orders shows that there was an agreement between the parties that the unsold articles beyond three months will be returned at the cost and risk of the supplier and any payment made for the goods returned was to be recovered. Further, there was penalty clause in the form of increased rate of interest.
24. Further, the contentions that the goods were sold to the plaintiff and there was no transfer of stock cannot be accepted as there is a return policy and also there is categorical mentioning of the word "STOCK AND SALE". Therefore, the submissions that goods were sold to the plaintiff and there was no transfer of stock cannot be accepted as the agreement mentions both the aspects and there is clear policy for return at the cost and risk of the supplier (seller). In normal circumstances, distributorship/franchise of a CS no. 254/16 Rahul Dev VS Inkarp Instruments Pvt Ltd Page no. 24 of 28 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR PASWAN KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.02.18 14:55:25 +0530 company returns the articles not sold within a specific period and if the burden is imposed upon the distributor to suffer the loss for each unsold article, the distributor cannot survive/thrive and will be burdened with losses only. Here in this case when there is specific return policy, the defendant cannot take opposite stand contrary to that policy.
25. Regarding technical support from defendant only, the document Ex.PW1/114 is a IVRI EMD which is refund letter from defendant wherein it is stated that the plaintiff is represented to be authorized, submitting quotation, participate in tenders, negotiate (technically and financially) and conclude orders on behalf of the defendants. This document has been admitted by the defendant. This shows that in a sense, the area of operation of the plaintiff along with the authority from the side of defendants is too wide. This document also shows that the plaintiff was not merely given technical support but were actually in a position to conclude contracts on behalf of the defendants.
26. It is submitted on behalf of plaintiff that plaintiff has tried to return the articles/goods by sending various emails and letters to the defendant. Further, during that relevant period Form F was required to be sent for return of the articles/goods. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has pointed towards the various emails sent to the defendant and one of them being Ex.PW1/87, Ex.PW1/94 etc. wherein there is demand of Form F from the defendant. The CS no. 254/16 Rahul Dev VS Inkarp Instruments Pvt Ltd Page no. 25 of 28 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR PASWAN KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.02.18 14:55:30 +0530 documents are admitted by the defendant.
27. Further, as per the document Ex.PW1/125 (legal notice), the defendant has a money due towards the plaintiff for an amount of Rs. 3,55,031/-. However, no separate suit or a counter claim has been filed in this regard. The relevant paragraphs of document Ex.PW1/125 are reproduced as under:-
"Your client till date has not sent the microscopes back to us for us to process the sells return. The claim of your client that the stock cannot be shipped back because of non-provision of form F is not valid due to the following reasons".
"The microscopes under question are items which were ordered by your client and sold by us to your client. It is therefore a sales executed by us and is not a stock transfer. As per commercial tax rules form F is applicable only for stock transfer. However your client does not sell goods on behalf of our company but purchases equipments from us and sells it to his customers. Therefore the question of inkarp submitting form F does not arise".
"As per VAT rules the microscopes under consideration have been sold by inkarp to your client and sales tax for the same has also been remitted by us to the department. Since it is very clear that this to be construed as a sale and not stock transfer, this transaction can be settled only by way of sales return whereby your client shall ship the units back to inkarp and upon receipt of the consignment inkarp shall issue a credit note in favour of your client".
28. As per the terms and conditions, the defendant was bound to take return of the articles/goods. No evidence has been adduced to show that the plaintiff has not made any efforts to sell the CS no. 254/16 Rahul Dev VS Inkarp Instruments Pvt Ltd Page no. 26 of 28 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR PASWAN KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.02.18 14:55:35 +0530 material/articles which were in the possession of the plaintiff and there is no valid explanation as to why the articles/goods were not taken back by the defendant contrary to the terms and conditions. Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay/reimburse the loss to the plaintiff for not receiving the deadstock as per the terms and conditions.
29. The plaintiff has given bifurcation of the amount claimed. However, no evidence has been produced for the various amounts paid as earnest money/tender charges etc. amounting to Rs. 5,000/-, 24,000/-, 50,000/-, etc. No witness has been examined to show such payments. Apart from some documents nothing is available on record to substantiate the version. Those documents were not proved as per law. Therefore, the suit of plaintiff fails on these aspects.
30. As the plaintiff has proved that despite repeated reminders, the dead stock was not taken back by the defendant as per the terms and conditions, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to that amount after deduction of the amount already received through Court order. Regarding the payment of Rs. 5,52,100/- on account of slow moving products, the plaintiff has already sold the products for an amount of Rs. 90,000/- by the order of this Court vide order dated 30.09.2016. In view of the discussion above, these issues are decided in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
CS no. 254/16 Rahul Dev VS Inkarp Instruments Pvt Ltd Page no. 27 of 28
Digitally
signed by
ANIL
ANIL KUMAR
KUMAR PASWAN
PASWAN Date:
2025.02.18
14:55:41
+0530
RELIEF
31. In view of my observation on the above issues, suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed and a decree of Rs. 4,62,100/- is passed in favor of the plaintiff and against all the defendants jointly and severally. The plaintiff is also entitled interest @ 9 % p.a from the date of filing of the present suit till realisation of the decreetal amount. The plaintiff is also entitled to costs of Rs. 25,000/- against the defendants jointly and severally.
32. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Digitally File be consigned to record room. ANIL signed by ANIL KUMAR PASWAN KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.02.18
14:55:45
+0530
Pronounced in the open court (Anil Kumar Paswan)
on 18.02.2025 DJ-04 (EAST), KKD, Delhi
18.02.2025
CS no. 254/16 Rahul Dev VS Inkarp Instruments Pvt Ltd Page no. 28 of 28