Delhi District Court
M/S. Mohit Textiles vs M/S. Suraj Enterprises on 12 March, 2020
Mohit Textiles v. Suraj Enterprises
IN THE COURT OF CHARU ASIWAL : CIVIL JUDGE - 08
(CENTRAL), ROOM NO.231, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
SUIT NO : 2411/17 (OLD NO.507/17)
In the matter of :
M/s. Mohit Textiles
through its Proprietor
Sh. Vipin Malik,
S/o Late Hukum Chand Malik,
Having its office at 5628, Gali No.77,
Regar Pura, Karol Bagh,
Delhi. ...PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. M/s. Suraj Enterprises
through its Proprietor
Sh. Dharmender
2. Dharmender
Proprietor of M/s. Suraj Enterprises
Both R/o T289A, Road No.20,
Baljit Nagar, New Delhi - 110 008.
3. Suraj Kumar
S/o Sh. Dharmender
AR and Signatory of M/s. Suraj Enterprises
R/o 2004, Bagichi Ragnath,
Sadar Bazar, Delhi - 110 006 ...DEFENDANTS
Date of institution : 19.07.2017
Date of judgment : 12.03.2020
SUIT NO : 2411/17 (OLD NO.507/17) Pg 1 of 9
Mohit Textiles v. Suraj Enterprises
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.1,03,103/ ALONG WITH INTEREST @ 24%
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide a suit for recovery of money. BRIEF FACTS OF THE PLAINT :
2. The brief facts of the present suit as averred by the plaintiff are that the plaintiff is engaged in the business of wholesale dealing of fabric of cloths. Defendant No.3 and his brother Rohit approached the plaintiff in October, 2016, and represented that they are engaged in the business of manufacturing and wholesaling of designer shirts and jeans under the name and style of M/s. Suraj Enterprises and its sister concern M/s. Rohit Enterprises both having the same address, under the common brand name Royal Touch, and for the purpose of manufacturing the shirt and jeans they require fabric in bulk. The defendants assured the plaintiff that payment in respect of the goods supplied shall be made soon after the delivery of fabric. Accordingly, plaintiff supplied goods to the defendants in respect of which bills were issued and duly acknowledged. The present suit has been filed with respect to Bill No.33570 dated 03.11.2016, issued in the name of M/s. Suraj Enterprises amounting to Rs.1,03,103/ only. That upon request for SUIT NO : 2411/17 (OLD NO.507/17) Pg 2 of 9 Mohit Textiles v. Suraj Enterprises payment by the plaintiff, defendant No.3 in order to discharge the liability of defendant No.1 issued a cheque bearing No.098801 dated 15.02.2017, amounting to Rs.1,03,103/ in respect of the aforesaid bill. However, defendants had requested the plaintiff to wait uptil second week of May, 2017 to present the said cheque as there was no sufficient balance in their account.
3. Upon presentation of the aforesaid cheque, the said cheque was returned for the reason "instrument outdated". Upon the dishonor of said cheque, the plaintiff approached the defendants and demanded them to make the payment of the cheque, however, the defendants refused to make payment in respect of the aforesaid cheque and also stated that they were not intending to make payment in respect of the goods since very beginning. The plaintiff states that the defendants with an intention to cheat have fraudulently and dishonestly deprived the plaintiff of Rs.1,03,103/ and have caused wrongful losses to the plaintiff and a wrongful gain to themselves. The plaintiff sent a legal notice through his counsel to the defendants on 06.06.2017, calling upon them to make the outstanding payment which was served upon the defendant on 10.06.2017 and the defendants despite the notice have neither replied SUIT NO : 2411/17 (OLD NO.507/17) Pg 3 of 9 Mohit Textiles v. Suraj Enterprises to the same nor made the payment. Hence, the present suit. WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANTS :
4. On the other hand, defendants in their written statement have controverted the claim of the plaintiff while contending that no cause of action arise in favour of the plaintiff to file the present suit and the plaintiff has concealed the true and material facts. It is stated that defendant No.3 had been engaged in small business of wholesaling of designer shirts and jeans separately without any type of relation with defendants No.1 and 2. Defendants submits that they had never met or dealt with plaintiff at any point of time. It is submitted that defendant No.3 had purchased some fabric items from Sharad Gupta with the support of defendant No.2 and his one friend after handing over him one blank undated security cheque bearing No.098801 drawn on Punjab National Bank and reiterates that the defendants had never approached the plaintiff to supply the fabric. It is further submitted that defendant No.3 had already paid the entire amount of purchase items to Sharad Gupta and when he requested the said Sh. Sharad Gupta for returning the aforesaid blank cheque, kept with him as a security, the said Sh.
Sharad Gupta denied to return the same and said that he will not return SUIT NO : 2411/17 (OLD NO.507/17) Pg 4 of 9 Mohit Textiles v. Suraj Enterprises the security cheque until his brother Rohit has not paid him an amount of Rs.1,10,000/ and further threatened to misuse the security cheques taken from Rohit and the defendant as well. It is further submitted that plaintiff in illegal manner and without being the holder in due course has got the said blank cheques from Sh. Sharad Gupta and presented the same without their being any liability. It is further submitted that present suit is false and frivolous and has been filed only to extort money from defendants as the defendants never owed any liability towards the plaintiff. The defendant also denies the receipt of any legal notice from the plaintiff. The defendants pray for dismissal of the present suit. REPLICATION :
5. Plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of the defendants denying the case of the defendants; reiterating and reaffirming the case as set up by the plaintiff in the plaint. Plaintiff further states that the defendants have not filed any document with respect to their alleged transaction with Sh. Sharad Gupta. The plaintiff further denies the existence of any person namely, Sharad Gupta, who was involved in the deal between plaintiff and the defendants.
SUIT NO : 2411/17 (OLD NO.507/17) Pg 5 of 9
Mohit Textiles v. Suraj Enterprises
ISSUES :
6. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 25.01.2019.
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the decree for recovery of Rs.1,03,103/ along with interest @ 24% per annum?
OPP.
2. Relief.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE :
7. Plaintiff to prove his case examined Sh. Vipin Malik, Proprietor of plaintiff Firm whose examination in chief is by way of affidavit Ex.PW 1/A. PW1 relied on following documents:
1. Ex.PW1/1 carbon copy of Bill No.33570 dated 03.11.2016.
2. Ex.PW1/2 original cheque bearing No.098801 dated 15.02.2017 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Karol Bagh, Delhi.
3. Ex.PW1/3 cheque returning memo dated 15.05.2017.
4. Ex.PW1/4 office copy of legal notice dated 05.06.2017.
5. Ex.PW1/5 original postal receipts.
6. Ex.PW1/6 deexhibited and marked as MarkA (colly.) being Internet generated tracking report of speed post.
SUIT NO : 2411/17 (OLD NO.507/17) Pg 6 of 9 Mohit Textiles v. Suraj Enterprises
8. PW1 was not cross examined on behalf of defendants despite giving opportunity. The right of defendants to cross examine PW1 was closed vide order dated 22.11.2019 and defendants were also proceeded against exparte vide such order.
9. I have heard the counsel for plaintiff and have perused the record.
Issuewise findings as follows:
10. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the decree for recovery of Rs.1,03,103/ along with interest @ 24% per annum? OPP.
11. At the stage of plaintiff's evidence, defendant was proceeded against exparte. Plaintiff had adduced its evidence and placed reliance on documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/5 in support of chain of transactions held between parties. Furthermore, the contents of written statement and denials of defendant are evasive in nature and do not elucidate the prevailing circumstances or facts.
12. Additionally, since in the present case, defendant despite filing of written statement, failed to cross examine the witness of plaintiff, neither did the defendant adduced any evidence, therefore, it stands established on record that whatever the plaintiff's witness deposed in the evidence which is by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A, has to be taken admitted deposition as it has completely gone unrebutted. The Hon'ble Delhi High SUIT NO : 2411/17 (OLD NO.507/17) Pg 7 of 9 Mohit Textiles v. Suraj Enterprises Court in M/s Eco Lab Inc v. Eco Labs Ltd. 2011 (185) DLT 664 has observed that where the plaintiff's evidence has gone unrebutted as the defendant has failed to crossexamine the witness of the plaintiff then in such situation the evidence filed by the plaintiff is taken to be correct.
There is no other version available to the court with respect to the facts and circumstances which have been averred in the plaint and proved by the witnesses of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the version given by the witness of the Plaintiff on oath has to be accepted as correct and true I find no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the plaintiff witness and the documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/14. The suit is also well within the period of limitation. Plaintiff has relied on documents Ex.PW1/1 & Ex.PW1/2, both document appears to have been signed by the defendant himself. Defendant has failed to discredit the version of the plaintiff that such documents were signed by him.
13. In the present suit plaintiff has sought interest @ 24% on the principle amount amount of Rs.1,03,103/ which in the opinion of the court is exorbitant. Accordingly, the plaintiff is also held entitled to interest on the the principal amount of Rs.1,03,103/ @ 6% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the present suit till the realization of the SUIT NO : 2411/17 (OLD NO.507/17) Pg 8 of 9 Mohit Textiles v. Suraj Enterprises decreetal amount.
14. Accordingly, the issue No.1 is decided in favor of plaintiff.
15. Hence, the present suit is hereby decreed for a sum of Rs.1,03,103/ with costs of the suit. Under these circumstances, plaintiff is also awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum (simple) from date of filing of the suit till realization of the decreetal amount.
16. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Digitally signedby CHARU
CHARU ASIWAL
17. File be consigned to Record Room.
Date:
ASIWAL 2020.03.12
16:33:17
+0530
Announced in the open court (Charu Asiwal)
on 12.03.2020 Civil Judge - 08 (Central)/Delhi
SUIT NO : 2411/17 (OLD NO.507/17) Pg 9 of 9