Delhi District Court
M/S Jainsons Lights Pvt Ltd vs Tarun Vadehra Interiors Pvt Ltd on 29 November, 2019
IN THE COURT OF MS. TANIA SINGH,
CIVIL JUDGE01, CENTRAL DISTRICT, DELHI
Suit No.1903/2017
M/s Jainsons Lights Pvt Ltd
Through its Director Sh. Anubhav Jain
S/o Sh. Rajan Jain,
193234, 2nd & 3rd Foor, Opposite Fountain,
Chandni Chowk, Delhi110006. .............. Plaintiff
Versus
Tarun Vadehra Interiors Pvt Ltd
Through its Managing Director
Sh. Tarun Vadehra
D4041, Defence Colony,
New Delhi110024. .........Defendant
Date of institution of suit : 24.05.2017
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 29.11.2019
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS 1,39,844/
JUDGMENT
1. As per the plaint, plaintiff is a private limited company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its office at 193234, 2nd & 3rd floor, opposite CS No.1903/2017 M/s Jainsons Lights Pvt Ltd vs M/s Tarun Vadehra Interiors Pvt Ltd page 1 of 7 Fountain, Chandini Chowk, Delhi110006, dealing in supply and distribution of lights, lighting equipments and its accessories. The defendant is also a registered company. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant company purchased goods worth Rs 1,39,844 on credit from the plaintiff company, the payment was agreed to be made within one month form the date of purchase. It has been averred in the plaint that the plaintiff belived upon the assurances given by the defendant and supplied the ordered material as per specifications vide invoice no. 635 dated 14.11.2016, but the defendant has failed to make the payment despite repeated requests. It is further averred that the original invoice and transportation receipt are in the possession of the defendant. It is further averred that a legal notice was sent to the defendant company via speed post as well as courier and the same has not been returned back to the plainitff. However, the defendant neither responded to the notice nor made the payment. Hence, the present suit has been filed praying for recovery of Rs 1,39,844 along with interest, pendente lite and future, @12% p.a. from the date of this suit till the realization, against the defendant company.
2. Summons of the suit were issued to the defendant by the Ld. Predecessor of this court upon which the defendant had put their appearance and thereafter the matter was listed for filing of Written Statement on behalf of defendant.
3. The defendant company in its written statement has denied the fact of advancing any order or purchase of any such alleged materials or goods worth Rs 1,39,844/ from the plainitff on credit or that the defendant company gave the plainitff company any assurance of any such payment. It is further stated that no such materials were ever supplied by the plainitff company to the defendant company and it is also denied that the possession of the original invoice and transportation receipt is with the defenant company, as alleged by the plaintiff company. The defendant has also denied the receipt CS No.1903/2017 M/s Jainsons Lights Pvt Ltd vs M/s Tarun Vadehra Interiors Pvt Ltd page 2 of 7 of any legal notice from the plaintiff with regards to the alleged transaction.
4. The plainitff thereafter submitted a replication to the written statement in which it denied all the allegations made in the written statement and reiterated what was averred in the plaint.
Evidence:
5. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff company examined Sh Anubhav Jain, S/o Sh Rajan Jain, director of the plaintiff company as PW1. PW1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied upon following documents:
(i)Ex. PW1/1 : Extract of minutes of meeting of board directors held on 01.05.2017.
(ii)Ex. PW1/2 : Photocopy of certificate of incorporation of the plaintiff.
(iii)Ex. PW1/3 : Computer generated copy of invoice.
(iv)Ex. PW1/4 : Computer generated statement of account.
(v)Ex. PW1/5 : Certificate u/S 65 B of Indian Evidence Act.
(vi)Ex. PW1/6 : Office copy of notice dated 13.01.2017.
(vii)Ex. PW1/7 : Original postal receipt.
(viii)Ex. PW1/8 : Original courier receipt.
PW1 was duly cross examined by the defendant and discharged.
6. The defendant examined Sh. Kapil Agarwal, S/o Sh. Mahesh Chand Agarwal as DW1 and produced the following documents:
(i) Ex.DW1/1 : Board resolution dated 08.08.2019.
He was duly crossexamined by the plainitff and discharged. CS No.1903/2017 M/s Jainsons Lights Pvt Ltd vs M/s Tarun Vadehra Interiors Pvt Ltd page 3 of 7
7. Final Arguments were heard at length and the record is carefully perused by this court.
Section 101 of the Evidence Act reads as:
101. Burden of proof --Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.
When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.
In Addagada Raghavamma and Anr. vs Addagada Chenchamma and Anr. 1964 SCR (2) 933, the Hon'ble Apex Court held:
"There is an essential distinction between burden of Proof and onus of proof, burden of proof lies upon the person who has to prove a fact and it never shifts, but the onus of proof shifts."
Thus burden of proving its case rests upon the plaintiff. This burden remains constant and does not shift.
Issuewise findings: Issue No.1
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of sum of Rs. 1,39,844/ along with interest, as prayed for?OPP
8. Onus to prove the issue was cast upon the plaintiff. It was for the plaintiff to establish on a preponderance of probabilities that a sum of Rs 1,39,844/ along with interest was due to him from the defendant. While the plainitff has argued that the defendant had purchased goods worth the above CS No.1903/2017 M/s Jainsons Lights Pvt Ltd vs M/s Tarun Vadehra Interiors Pvt Ltd page 4 of 7 mentioned amount from the plainitff and that the plainitff had supplied the same to the defendant, the plaintiff has not placed on record original invoice and transportation receipts as they are stated to be in the possession of the defendant. The plainitff has only produced before this Court a computer generated copy of the invoice Ex. PW1/3 and a computer generated statement of account Ex. PW1/4 alongwith the certificate required as per Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. However, these computer generated duplicates do not bear any signature or acknowledgement of liability from the defendant. No other purchase order or receiving has been filed by the plaintiff. The plainitff has also failed to produce any document or bilti showing that the goods were supplied through a local trasnporter nor has any VAT return been placed on record.
9. Interestingly, this alleged transaction was the first one to take place between the plaintiff and the defedant, as averred by the plaintiff and as shown in the statement of account Ex PW1/4, and despite the absence of any history of previous transactions, the plainitff claims to have given the goods worth Rs 1,39,844/ on credit to the defendant company and that too without knowing the name and details of the person who approached it on behalf of the defenant company. The plaintiff has only produced email communications dated 21.08.2019 Mark 'X' and email communications Mark 'Y' (colly) that were exchanged between the defendant company and reply with regards to the alleged transaction. However, even these emails were not produced at the first instance and it was only during the crossexamination of PW1, that it was stated by him that he can produce before this Court such communication. Moreover, no Section 65B certificate as required by the Indian Evidence Act CS No.1903/2017 M/s Jainsons Lights Pvt Ltd vs M/s Tarun Vadehra Interiors Pvt Ltd page 5 of 7 has been produced before this Court along with the email communication. These emails were neither admitted nor denied by DW1. Thus, this Court cannot consider the email correspondence placed on record as the same is inadmissible for being unsupported by a Section 65B certificate. Bare perusal of the email communications show that there are no communications with respect to any concluded contract between the parties, further the emails do not pertain to the transaction in question. Therefore, the email communcation filed on record by plaintiff does not lead to an inference that parties had any business relations between them or there were any concluded business transactions between the parties.
10. It must also be noted that in the plaint and in the crossexamination of PW1, it has been stated that the goods were supplied to the defendant company by the plainitff company via a local transporter. However, in the examinationinchief of the PW1 via affidavit Ex PW1/A, he has stated that the goods were taken by one Sh. Rakesh, a representative of the defendant company, from the business place of the plaintiff. Thus, there are blatant contradictions with regards to a material facts in this case. Plaintiff has therefore, failed to discharge his burden of proof to the satisfaction of the Court.
11. Thus, keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the case, issue no. 1 is decided against the plaintiff.
CS No.1903/2017 M/s Jainsons Lights Pvt Ltd vs M/s Tarun Vadehra Interiors Pvt Ltd page 6 of 7 Relief:
12. In view of the findings given on the aforesaid issues, suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
13. Respective cost of litigation to be borne by the parties.
14. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
15. File be cosigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court (TANIA SINGH)
on this 29.11.2019. Civil Judge01/Central,
Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi
CS No.1903/2017 M/s Jainsons Lights Pvt Ltd vs M/s Tarun Vadehra Interiors Pvt Ltd page 7 of 7