Delhi District Court
M/S Harsita Worldwide vs M/S Oriental Hometex on 31 May, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. SACHIN MITTAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-03, DISTRICT: SOUTH-EAST,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS DJ No. 772/18
In the matter of:
M/s Harsita Worldwide,
73, G/F F/P Samman Bazar,
Bhogal, Delhi-110014,
through its Partner Mr. Shivam. .... Plaintiff.
VERSUS
1. M/s Oriental Hometex,
Through its proprietor.
2. Sajid,
Proprietor of M/s Oriental Hometex,
Both at: G4/1, 4th floor, 40 Feeta road,
Shaheen Bagh, Jamia Nagar,
New Delhi-25. ....Defendants.
Date of Institution : 21.05.2018
Date on which arguments concluded : 03.05.2024
Date of Judgment : 31.05.2024
Result : Dismissed
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this Judgment, I shall decide the suit filed on behalf of the plaintiff as a Summary Suit under the provisions of Order 37 CPC seeking the recovery of an amount of Rs. 21,10,500/- alongwith pendente-lite and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum and costs of the suit, against the defendants.
2. The allegations/averments in so far the same are CS DJ No. 772/18 M/s Harsita Worldwide Page 1 of 17 v.
M/s Oriental Hometex and Anr.
necessary for the adjudication of the present suit and as stated in the plaint can be summarized as under:
(a) The plaintiff is a partnership firm and Mr. Shubam is one of the partners authorized to take action on behalf of the plaintiff firm;
(b) The defendant no.1 is proprietorship firm of defendant no.2;
(c) The defendant no.2 approached the plaintiff through Mr. Hasan Ahmed. The plaintiff as per the orders placed by the defendants supplied the goods on credit basis through invoices to the defendants;
(d) The defendants issued a cheque bearing no.050757, drawn on Central Bank of India, Delhi, for an amount of Rs. 21,10,500/-, to the plaintiff towards the payment of the goods purchased by the defendants;
(e) The said cheque upon its presentment for encashment was returned dishonoured with the report, 'funds insufficient';
(f) The plaintiff contacted the defendants for the payment of cheque amount, however, the defendants refused to pay the same;
(g) The plaintiff got a legal notice dated 06.04.2018 through speed post issued to the defendants, which was, however, refused;
(h) The defendants have failed to pay the cheque amount to the plaintiff despite repeated requests;
(i) The suit is within the limitation period; this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the suit; and the requisite Court fees has been paid;
It is in the background of aforesaid facts that the plaintiff has CS DJ No. 772/18 M/s Harsita Worldwide Page 2 of 17 v.
M/s Oriental Hometex and Anr.
sought the recovery of an amount of Rs. 21,10,500/- alongwith pendente-lite and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum and costs of the suit, against the defendants.
3. In pursuance of service of summons in the prescribed format under Form IV, Appendix B, Schedule 1 of CPC, 1908, as per Order V Rule 9 of CPC, 1908, the defendants entered the appearance with a delay of 67 days, which was condoned by the Ld. Predecessor, vide Order dated 24.02.2020. The plaintiff, then, applied for issuance of summons for judgment in terms of Order 37 Rule 4 CPC. The defendants filed an application for leave to defend under Order 37 Rule 5 CPC. The plaintiff filed reply to the said application for leave to defend. The Ld. Predecessor, vide Order dated 02.04.2022, granted the leave to defend to the defendants, subject to the deposit of an amount of Rs. 5 Lakhs in the Court by the defendants. The defendants initially deposited an amount of Rs. 3 Lakhs and filed an application under Section 151 CPC seeking the reduction of the deposit amount. The said application was, however, dismissed by the Ld. Predecessor, vide Order dated 04.08.2022. The defendants, then, deposited an additional amount of Rs. 2 Lakhs in the Court and filed the written statement to defend the suit.
4. The defence of the defendants as pleaded in the written statement can be summarized as under:
(a) While paragraph one of the plaint mentions Mr. Shubam as partner of the plaintiff firm, the plaint has been signed by one Mr. Shivam;
(b) The authority letter filed with the plaint is in favour a third person, Kapil Jain, who is neither a partner, nor an employee of the plaintiff; and he is a proxy of Mr. Shah Hasan, who has CS DJ No. 772/18 M/s Harsita Worldwide Page 3 of 17 v.
M/s Oriental Hometex and Anr.
filed the present suit in conspiracy with the partners of plaintiff firm. There is no General/Special Power of Attorney, or minutes of meeting in favour of aforesaid Kapil Jain;
(c) The defendants are in the business of Home Furnishing products, which they used to purchase from the authorized dealers of Bombay Dyeing Manufacturing Ltd. and other manufacturers;
(d) The plaintiffs are in the business of perfumes and essence etc. and they are in no way in the business of Home Furnishing products, or bed-sheets;
(e) The defendants never placed any order for the purchase of goods from the plaintiff and the plaintiff never supplied any goods to the defendants. The sale invoice/tax invoice filed with the plaint is a forged document. The said sale invoice/tax invoice do not bear any acknowledgement/stamp/signature of the defendants. The plaintiff has not filed any e-way bill, or receipt of goods, or transport detail to prove the delivery of the goods to the defendants;
(f) The defendants never issued the cheque in question to the plaintiff. The plaintiff obtained the said cheque from one Mr. Shah Hasan Ahmed, who had taken the said cheque from the defendants by making a false promise that some dealer of Bombay Dyeing will supply the goods to the defendants as and when the order for the same will be placed by the defendants. Mr. Shah Hasan Ahmed was the Regional Sales Manager of Bombay Dyeing Manufacturing Ltd. The defendants had issued the said cheque in blank against a receipt issued by Mr. Shah Hasan Ahmed that the said cheque will be handed over to the CS DJ No. 772/18 M/s Harsita Worldwide Page 4 of 17 v.
M/s Oriental Hometex and Anr.
authorized dealer of Bombay Dyeing only when the defendants will place the order. The defendants through WhatsApp on 19.09.2017 to Mr. Shah Hasan Ahmed had asked him to return the cheque. It is only after the said demand by the defendants that Mr. Shah Hasan in collusion with the plaintiff deposited the cheque for encashment on 20.09.2020 and the same was returned dishonored on 21.09.2017;
(g) The plaintiff in the tax invoice no. T-9, dated 18.08.2017, has not mentioned the size, company, or product code of the three thousands bed-sheets allegedly supplied to the defendants. The GST registration of the plaintiff on the GST portal shows that plaintiff is not in the business of HSN '6304', which code is for bed-sheet/bed linen. The plaintiff is neither the manufacturer of bed-sheet, nor is it the authorized dealer of Bombay Dyeing, nor has it filed any proof of purchase of bed-sheet from any manufacturer for supplying the same to the defendants;
(h) The plaintiff has not filed any proof of allegedly requesting the defendants repeatedly for payment of cheque amount. The alleged legal notice dated 06.04.2018 was never delivered to the defendants and the tracking report shows, 'consignment details not found';
(i) The defendant has filed a criminal case for the misuse of the cheque;
5. The plaintiff in its replication without replying the allegations in the written statement specifically, has vaguely and evasively denied the same and has further reaffirmed those in the plaint. The contents of the said replication are therefore not being dealt with herein.
CS DJ No. 772/18 M/s Harsita Worldwide Page 5 of 17v.
M/s Oriental Hometex and Anr.
6. On the basis of pleadings and documents on record, the following issues were framed:
Issue no.1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs. 21,10,500/- against the defendant, as prayed for?OPP Issue no.2: Whether the plaintiff entitled to pendente-lite and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum, as prayed for? OPP Issue no.3: Whether the authority letter in favour of Mr. Kapil Jain on behalf of the plaintiff is defected? OPD Issue no.4: Whether there exist no business relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant and the defendant never placed any order with the plaintiff and the plaintiff never delivered any goods?OPD Issue no.5: Whether the cheque in question was given as a security to one Mr. Hasan, which was later misused by plaintiff in conspiracy with him by issuing a fake invoice?OPD Issue no.6: Relief?
7. Plaintiff, in order to prove its case, examined its authorized representative, Kapil Jain as PW-1, who tendered his affidavit-in-evidence, Ex. PW-1/A towards examination-in-chief and relied upon following documents:
(i) Original cheque bearing no. 050757, dated 10.09.2017 as PW-
1/1;
(ii) Copy of cheque return memo dated 21.09.2017 as Mark A;
(iii) Original tax invoice dated 18.01.2017 as Ex. PW-1/3;
(iv) Copy of legal notice dated 06.04.2018 as Ex. PW-1/4;
(v) Two postal receipts, both dated 07.04.2018 as Ex. PW-1/5 (colly.);
(vi) Two returned envelopes with remark, 'no such person' as Ex.
PW-1/6 (colly.);
CS DJ No. 772/18 M/s Harsita Worldwide Page 6 of 17v.
M/s Oriental Hometex and Anr.
(vii) Original authority letter dated 08.05.2018 as Ex. PW-1/7;
The plaintiff's witness, PW-1 was examined and cross- examined on 23.11.2020, 25.11.2020 and 07.12.2020 and then was discharged. The plaintiff's witness, PW-1 during his cross- examination on 07.12.2022 tendered in evidence an invoice, Ex. PW- 1/X. The plaintiff, vide a separate statement recorded on 07.12.2020, closed its evidence in affirmative.
8. The defendants in defence examined three witnesses: (i) Defendant no.2 himself, Sajid Khan as DW-1; (ii) police official, Ashish Sharma, SI as DW-2; and (iii) Shah Hasan Ahmed as DW-3.
8.1. DW-1/Sajid Khan tendered his affidavit-in-evidence, Ex.DW-1/A towards his examination-in-chief, wherein he relied upon following documents:
(i) Receipt dated 14.08.2017 as Ex. DW-1/1 (OSR);
(ii) WhatsApp message of 19.09.2017 to Mr. Shah Hasan Ahmed as Mark A (objected to by the Counsel of the plaintiff on the ground of its production for the first time);
(iii) Police complaint, vide DD No. 24B dated 23.04.2019 as Ex.
DW-1/2 (OSR);
(iv) Statement dated 20.05.2022 of Shah Hasan Ahmed as Ex. DW-
1/3 (OSR) (objected to by the Counsel of the plaintiff on the ground of its production for the first time);
(v) Online trading records of Department of Post and certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act as Ex. DW-1/4 (colly.) (objected to by the Counsel of the plaintiff on the ground of its production for the first time);
CS DJ No. 772/18 M/s Harsita Worldwide Page 7 of 17v.
M/s Oriental Hometex and Anr.
(vi) GSTR-3B of defendant for the period of July, August, September, 2017-2018 as Ex. DW-1/5 (colly.) (objected to by the Counsel of the plaintiff on the ground of its production for the first time);
DW-1/Sajid Khan was examined and cross-examined on 07.01.2023, 11.01.2023, 12.01.2023 and 07.02.2023 and was then discharged.
8.2. The Police official, Ashish Sharma, SI as DW-2 was examined and cross-examined on 13.02.2023 and he tendered in evidence the general diary no. 24A dated 23.04.2019, page no. 36 in book no. 9940 as Ex. DW-2/A (OSR). He was then discharged.
8.3. Shah Hasan Ahmed as DW-3 was cross-examined on 03.05.2023 without even being examined-in-chief first. He was then discharged.
9. I have heard Sh. Ankit Gupta, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and Sh. Kumud Shekhar, Ld. Counsel for the defendant no.1 and 2. I have perused the record including the written submissions filed on behalf of both parties.
FINDING ON ISSUES:
10. Issue no.3: Whether the authority letter in favour of Mr. Kapil Jain on behalf of the plaintiff is defected? OPD 10.1. The burden of proving this issue was fixed upon the defendant.
10.2. The plaintiff, claiming to be a partnership firm, in para 1 of the plaint, has mentioned that Mr. Shubam is one of its partners and that he is fully competent to take actions on behalf of the plaintiff firm. The plaint, verification at its foot and the supporting affidavit CS DJ No. 772/18 M/s Harsita Worldwide Page 8 of 17 v.
M/s Oriental Hometex and Anr.
have been signed by one, Shivam, claiming to be partner of the plaintiff firm. One authority letter dated 08.05.2018 in favour of Kapil Jain on the letter head of plaintiff firm and with the stamp and signatures of its partner, Shivam has also been filed with the plaint and the same has been tendered in evidence as Ex. PW-1/7.
10.3. Ld. Counsel for the defendants is right in his contention that the authorized representative, Kapil Jain has not been duly authorized to prosecute the present suit on behalf of the plaintiff firm as there is no power of attorney executed in his favour. The execution of an authority letter simplicitor is not sufficient for authorizing a person to prosecute a suit on behalf of a partnership firm.
10.4. Having said above, though the authority letter has been executed in favour of Kapil Jain, the plaint, verification at the foot and the supporting affidavit have been signed by Shivam claiming to be one of the partners of the plaintiff firm. As per Order 30 Rule 1(2) CPC, in case of a suit filed in the name of partnership firm, the plaint can be signed, or verified by any of its partners. Thus, there is no defect in Shivam signing the plaint, verification at the foot and supporting affidavit, provided the plaintiff satisfies the requirement of registration of the firm as required under the Partnership Act, 1932 for the purpose of filing the suit.
10.5. Plaintiff, as per the plaint, claims to be a partnership firm and Mr. Shivam and Mr. Shubam have been stated to be partners in the plaintiff firm. However, no evidence of the facts of plaintiff firm being a registered partnership firm and Mr. Shivam and Mr. Shubam being registered partners therein has been led on behalf of the plaintiff firm. Plaintiff firm has filed the present suit for the recovery of the price of the goods allegedly supplied to the defendants. With regard CS DJ No. 772/18 M/s Harsita Worldwide Page 9 of 17 v.
M/s Oriental Hometex and Anr.
to the suit by or against a partnership firm, Section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932, provides as under:
"69. Effect of non-registration.--
(1) No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by this Act shall be instituted in any Court by or on behalf of any person suing as a partner in a firm against the firm or any person alleged to be or to have been a partner in the firm unless the firm is registered and the person suing is or has been shown in the Register of Firms as a partner in the firm.
(2) No suits to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any Court by or on behalf of a firm against any third party unless the firm is registered and the persons suing are or have been shown in the Register of Firms as partners in the firm.
(3) The provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) shall apply also to a claim of set-off or other proceeding to enforce a right arising from a contract, but shall not affect--
(a) the enforcement of any right to sue for the dissolution of a firm or for accounts of a dissolved firm, or any right or power to realise the property of a dissolved firm; or
(b) the powers of an official assignee, receiver or Court under the Presidency-towns Insolvency Act, 1909 (3 of 1909), or the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (5 of 1920), to realise the property of an insolvent partner.
(4) This section shall not apply--
(a) to firms or to partners in firms which have no place of business in the territories to which this Act extends, or whose places of business in the said territories are situated in areas to which, by notification under Section 56, the Chapter does not apply, or
(b) to any suit or claim or set-off not exceeding one hundred rupees in value which, in the Presidency-towns, is not of a kind specified in CS DJ No. 772/18 M/s Harsita Worldwide Page 10 of 17 v.
M/s Oriental Hometex and Anr.
Section 19 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 (15 of 1882), to outside the Presidency-towns, is not of a kind specified in the Second Schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (9 of 1887), or to any proceeding in execution or other proceeding incidental to or arising from any such suit or claim".
(emphasis supplied) The Supreme Court in Purushottam v. Shivraj Fine Arts Litho Works, (2007) 15 SCC 58, explained the object and purpose of registration of a partnership firm and the principle behind Section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932, as under:
"21. It would thus appear that registration of a firm was conceived as a protection to third parties dealing with a partnership firm. Registration ensured the certainty of existence of the firm and its membership, so that later an unsuspecting third party contracting with the firm may not run the risk of being defeated on discovery that neither the partnership firm nor its partners existed in fact. On the other hand, an unregistered firm could not bring a suit for enforcing its right arising from a contract.
24. With respect, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the principles enunciated in Haldiram Bhujiawala [(2000) 3 SCC 250] . Having regard to the purpose Section 69(2) seeks to achieve and the interest sought to be protected, the bar must apply to a suit for enforcement of right arising from a contract entered into by the unregistered firm with a third party in the course of business dealings with such third party. If the right sought to be enforced does not arise from a contract to which the unregistered firm is a party, or is not entered into in connection with the business of the unregistered firm with a third party, the bar of Section 69(2) will not apply".
The Supreme Court in Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd., (1998) 7 SCC 184 observed as under:
CS DJ No. 772/18 M/s Harsita Worldwide Page 11 of 17v.
M/s Oriental Hometex and Anr.
"9. A mere look at the aforesaid provision shows that the suit filed by an unregistered firm against a third party for enforcement of any right arising from a contract with such a third party would be barred at its very inception. To attract the aforesaid bar to the suit, the following conditions must be satisfied:
(i) That the plaintiff partnership firm on the date of the suit must not be registered under the provisions of the Partnership Act and consequently or even otherwise, the persons suing are not shown in the Register of Firms as partners of the firm, on the date of the suit.
(ii) Such unregistered firm or the partners mentioned in the sub-section must be suing the defendant third party.
(iii) Such a suit must be for enforcement of a right arising from a contract of the firm with such a third party."
The plaintiff firm by way of the present suit is seeking the recovery of price of the goods allegedly supplied to the defendants, which right plaintiff firm is claiming has arisen from the contract of sale of goods entered into between the plaintiff firm and the defendants. The present suit is, thus, clearly barred by virtue of Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, 1932 and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
10.6. The issue no.3 is, thus, decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants. The suit being hit by Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, 1932, is an additional reason for dismissal of the suit.
11. Issue no.1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs. 21,10,500/- against the defendant, as prayed for? OPP AND Issue no.4: Whether there exist no business relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant and the CS DJ No. 772/18 M/s Harsita Worldwide Page 12 of 17 v.
M/s Oriental Hometex and Anr.
defendant never placed any order with the plaintiff and the plaintiff never delivered any goods?OPD 11.1. Both these issues are being taken up together as the same can be determined on the basis of common findings of facts and/or law.
11.2. The plaintiff is seeking the recovery of claimed amount on the basis of its claim that it had supplied 300 pieces of bed-sheets, vide invoice, T-9, dated 18.08.2017, for an amount of Rs. 21,10,500/-, Ex. PW-1/3 to the defendants, however, the defendants failed to pay the consideration of the said purchase. Per contra, the defence of the defendants is to the effect that the defendants never placed any order for the purchase of goods from the plaintiff and that the plaintiff never supplied any goods to the defendants. The sale invoice/tax invoice filed with the plaint is a forged document. The said sale invoice/tax invoice do not bear any acknowledgement/stamp/ signature of the defendants. The plaintiff has not filed any e-way bill, or receipt of goods, or transport detail to prove the delivery of the goods to the defendants;
11.3. After carefully considering the rival contentions of the parties, I am of the view that a mere filing of an invoice raised upon the defendants, that too without any acknowledgement/signature on behalf of the defendants, does not prove the case of the plaintiff that the defendants had purchased the alleged goods from the plaintiff. The plaintiff has failed to bring on record any purchase order placed by the defendants, much less than proving the supply/delivery of goods to the defendants. Further, the plaintiff in para 3 of the plaint has alleged the supply of goods under 'invoices' in pursuance of 'orders' placed by the defendants. Thus, the plaintiff is claiming to CS DJ No. 772/18 M/s Harsita Worldwide Page 13 of 17 v.
M/s Oriental Hometex and Anr.
have supplied the goods to the defendants at several times. However, the plaintiff has not filed a single proof of any previous or subsequent transactions, in the form of ledger, or previous payments, or purchase orders, or consignment proof etc. 11.4. The defendants have also disputed the fact that the plaintiff is engaged in the business of trading of Home Furnishing Products like bed-sheet etc. The plaintiff's witness, PW-1 during his cross-examination on 07.12.2022 tendered in evidence an invoice, Ex. PW-1/X for the purpose of proving that it had purchased the bed- sheets from the manufacturer/other dealer for supplying the same to the defendants. The plaintiff, however, has failed to prove the said invoice Ex. PW-1/X by examining any witness. Further, the plaintiff in its replication, in para 4 under the heading 'parawise reply' has admitted that the GST registration of plaintiff was in the process of amendment. The plaintiff, however, failed to prove the said stand. In this regard, I find merit in the claim of the defendants that the fact that the GST registration of the plaintiff as shown on the GST portal shows that the plaintiff is engaged in the trading of products other then the bed-sheets/bed linen, the HSN code of which is '6304'. Even the plaintiff's witness, Kapil Jain/PW-1 in his cross-examination on 25.11.2022 admitted that prior to the alleged transaction of supply of bed-sheets by the plaintiff to the defendants, the plaintiff had not been in the business of bed-sheets and that the transaction with the defendants was the first transaction into the bed-sheets. For the reasons discussed herein above, I am not convinced with the claim of the plaintiff that it had supplied the bed-sheets to the defendants. Thus, there arise no occasion for plaintiff to supply the alleged three thousand pieces of bed-sheets to the defendants.
CS DJ No. 772/18 M/s Harsita Worldwide Page 14 of 17v.
M/s Oriental Hometex and Anr.
11.5. In view of the above discussion, the issue no.1 is determined against the plaintiff and the issue no.4 is determined in favour of the defendants.
12. Issue no.5: Whether the cheque in question was given as a security to one Mr. Hasan, which was later misused by plaintiff in conspiracy with him by issuing a fake invoice?OPD 12.1. The burden of proving this issue was fixed upon the defendant.
12.2. The defence of the defendants in respect of the issuance of the cheque in question is that the defendants never issued the cheque in question to the plaintiff. The plaintiff obtained the said cheque from one Mr. Shah Hasan Ahmed, who had taken the said cheque from the defendants by making a false promise that some dealer of Bombay Dyeing will supply the goods to the defendants as and when the order for the same will be placed by the defendants. Mr. Shah Hasan Ahmed was the Regional Sales Manager of Bombay Dyeing Manufacturing Ltd. The defendants had issued the said cheque in blank against a receipt issued by Mr. Shah Hasan Ahmed that the said cheque will be handed over to the authorized dealer of Bombay Dyeing only when the defendants will place the order. The defendants through WhatsApp on 19.09.2017 to Mr. Shah Hasan Ahmed had asked him to return the cheque. It is only after the said demand by the defendants that Mr. Shah Hasan in collusion with the plaintiff deposited the cheque for encashment on 20.09.2020 and the same was returned dishonored on 21.09.2017.
12.3. The defendants in order to prove their claim as aforesaid have relied upon the receipt dated 14.08.2017, Ex. DW-1/1 (OSR), which they claim, was signed by Mr. Shah Hasan Ahmed at the time CS DJ No. 772/18 M/s Harsita Worldwide Page 15 of 17 v.
M/s Oriental Hometex and Anr.
of receiving the three cheques including the one in question in the present case from the defendants. The said Mr. Shah Hasan Ahmed in the said receipt has undertaken to utilize the said cheques with prior permission of the defendants. The defendants have further relied upon the statement dated 20.05.2022, in the form of an affidavit of Mr. Shah Hasan Ahmed, Ex. DW-1/3. It is required to be noted that the said statement/affidavit, Ex. DW-1/3, was not filed with the written statement and its reception in evidence was objected to by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff at the time of its tendering into evidence on behalf of the plaintiff. The defendants further examined Mr. Shah Hasan Ahmed as a summoned witness as DW-3, who during his cross-examination relied upon the said statement/affidavit, Ex. DW- 1/3. Mr. Shah Hasan Ahmed, DW-3 in his statement/affidavit, Ex. DW-1/3 has admitted that he had received the three cheques including the cheque in question in the present case from the defendants and then he had handed over two cheques to M/s Goel Sales Corporation and the cheque in question to the plaintiff without the knowledge of the defendant no.2.
12.4. In view of the overall facts and circumstances as discussed herein above, I am convinced that in all probability, the cheque in question was issued by the defendants to Mr. Shah Hasan Ahmed, and not to the plaintiff.
12.5. The issue no.5 is, thus, determined in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff.
13. Issue no.2: Whether the plaintiff entitled to pendente-lite and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum, as prayed for? OPP 13.1. It has already been held above that the plaintiff is not CS DJ No. 772/18 M/s Harsita Worldwide Page 16 of 17 v.
M/s Oriental Hometex and Anr.
entitled to the recovery of an amount of Rs. 21,10,500/- against the defendants as prayed for in the plaint; the question of award of pendente-lite and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum upon any amount, therefore, does not even arise.
13.2. The issue no. 2 is, therefore, liable to be determined against the plaintiff. Held so.
14. RELIEF:
14.1. As a result of determination of all the issues against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants, the present suit is liable to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. The cost as per the rules are also awarded against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
15. The decree sheet be prepared.
16. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.Digitally signed by SACHIN
SACHIN MITTAL
Date:
Announced & dictated in MITTAL 2024.05.31
16:24:53
the open court on 31.05.2024 +0530
(Sachin Mittal)
District Judge-03/South-East District
Saket Courts, New Delhi/31.05.2024
Certified that this judgment contains 17 pages Digitally and each signedpage bears my signatures. SACHIN MITTAL by SACHIN MITTAL Date: 2024.05.31 16:25:10 +0530 (Sachin Mittal) District Judge-03/South-East District Saket Courts, New Delhi/31.05.2024 CS DJ No. 772/18 M/s Harsita Worldwide Page 17 of 17 v.
M/s Oriental Hometex and Anr.