Delhi District Court
M/S Rajat Foam Sales vs Brijbasi Art Press Ltd on 3 October, 2024
CNR No. DLCT010143762022
IN THE COURT OF MS. ILLA RAWAT :
DISTRICT JUDGE COMMERCIAL COURT- 03:
(CENTRAL) : TIS HAZARI (EXTENSION BLOCK) : DELHI.
CS (COMM) No. 2338/2022
In the matter of :-
M/s Rajat Foam Sales,
Through its partner, Rajat Arora,
Office at 4/5156, Krishna Nagar,
Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi. ...Plaintiff
Versus
Brijbasi Art Press Limited,
Through its directors,
Sh. Saurabh Jain and Sh. Anoop Jain
Office at :- A-81, Sector-05,
Gautam Budh Nagar,
Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 ...Defendant
Date of Institution : 13.10.2022
Judgment reserved on : 28.09.2024
Judgment passed on : 03.10.2024
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs. 22,60,071.85/-
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment I shall dispose off the suit for CS (COMM) No. 2338/2022 M/s Rajat Foam Sales Vs.Brijbasi Art Press Ltd. Page No. 1 of 34 Digitally signed by ILLA RAWAT ILLA Date:
RAWAT 2024.10.03
16:34:39
+0530
recovery of Rs. 22,60,071.85/-, filed by plaintiff against the defendant.
2. Brief facts of the case as averred in the plaint that plaintiff is a partnership concerned. Sh. Rajat Arora and Sh. Neeraj Arora are the partners of plaintiff firm. The plaint has been signed and suit has been filed through Sh. Rajat Arora, one of the partners of the plaintiff firm, who has been authorized vide power of attorney dated 02.03.2023 in this regard. The plaintiff firm is having its registered office at address mentioned in the memo of the parties and is dealing in the business of various types of foams including PU foam, EP foam, R.adhesive and rubber solution.
3. It is further averred in the plaint that the plaintiff and defendant have been in business with each other for last more than 20 years. During the course of business, defendant used to place order for supply of different kind of foams which were supplied by plaintiff to defendant as per specifications, to the satisfaction of the defendant, against bills raised from time to time. The officials of defendant lastly visited plaintiff's office on 26.03.2021 and issued a cheque of Rs.2,50,000/- towards part discharge of the liability of the defendant. As per statement of account of defendant, maintained by plaintiff, with respect to the goods supplied to the defendant, a sum of Rs.18,95,238.85/- is due and payable by defendant which defendant failed to pay despite repeated reminders on one pretext or the other. It is alleged that the defendant has now become dishonest and has wrongly and illegally sent a statement showing some debit notes, CS (COMM) No. 2338/2022 M/s Rajat Foam Sales Vs.Brijbasi Art Press Ltd. Page No. 2 of 34 Digitally signed by ILLA RAWAT ILLA Date:
RAWAT 2024.10.03
16:34:41
+0530
rebates and discount of Rs.15,50,000/- despite the fact that no such debit notes or rebate or discount was given/issued by plaintiff to the defendant.
4. The plaintiff's claim that the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.18,95,238.85/- along with a sum of Rs.3,64,833/- towards interest @ 21 % from 27.03.2021 i.e. the date last payment was made by defendant to the plaintiff till the date of filing of suit. Though plaintiff got issued legal notice dated 22.01.2022 to defendant calling upon the defendant to pay the outstanding amount, defendant failed to reply to the said notice or to clear the dues despite receipt of the said notice. Thus aggrieved by the act of the defendant, plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.22,60,071.85/-( Rs.18,95,238.85/- towards the principal amount and Rs.3,64,833/- towards interest @ 21 % from 27.03.2021 till date of filing of the suit ). The plaintiff has also prayed for grant of pendente lite and future interest at the same rate.
5. Defendant has contested the suit by filing the written statement. The maintainability of the suit has been challenged on the ground that plaintiff has filed the suit without any subsisting cause of action. It is also claimed that suit is not maintainable as plaintiff has failed to file documents regarding partnership firm or delegation of power by plaintiff in favour of Sh. Rajat Arora. The maintainability of the suit has further been challenged on the ground that plaintiff has concealed material fact that no amount as claimed by plaintiff is due and payable by defendant. The plaintiff is trying to take advantage of its own wrong after having supplied poor quality goods to the defendant due to which CS (COMM) No. 2338/2022 M/s Rajat Foam Sales Vs.Brijbasi Art Press Ltd. Page No. 3 of 34 Digitally signed by ILLA RAWAT ILLA Date:
RAWAT 2024.10.03
16:34:37
+0530
defendant suffered huge financial loss and lost its reputation in the market. The documents relied upon by plaintiff are also stated to be manipulated, forged and fabricated and accordingly, it is prayed that suit of plaintiff be dismissed.
6. The defendant has also given its own version of the facts. It is stated that the defendant is a registered company carrying on its own business from A-81, Sector-5, Noida, UP- 201301. The written statement has been signed and verified by Sh. Harish Malkoti, presently working as Account Executive of defendant company, who has been duly authorized vide General Power of Attorney dated 28.05.2024 executed by Sh. Apurv Garg, one of the Directors of defendant company who inturn has been vested with power to do so vide resolution dated 11.05.2024, passed in his favour by the other Directors of the company.
7. It is alleged that plaintiff has filed the present suit in order to conceal its own faults and shortcomings despite the fact that due to supply of poor and inferior quality of foam by plaintiff to defendant, defendant suffered loss of business and reputation. The plaintiff approached the defendant and assured it of supply of high quality of foam person to which there were business relation/dealing between the plaintiff for more than 25 years. Since the year 2020 whenever plaintiff supplied bulk quantity of foam, the quality of foam was poor regarding which defendant company informed the plaintiff regularly. The plaintiff, however, did not consider the request seriously. This is despite the fact that defendant never stopped payment of plaintiff. When CS (COMM) No. 2338/2022 M/s Rajat Foam Sales Vs.Brijbasi Art Press Ltd. Page No. 4 of 34 Digitally signed by ILLA RAWAT ILLA Date:
RAWAT 2024.10.03
16:34:39
+0530
plaintiff failed to pay heed to repeated complaints by the defendant, the defendant stopped buying foam from the plaintiff. As per statement of the defendant ledger account, last payment was made by it to plaintiff on 15.11.2021 for Rs.18,854/- through NEFT against invoice no.6042 dated 25.09.2021, 6084 dated 06.10.2021 and 6191 dated 30.10.2021. Debit note dated 30.06.2021 qua Rs.15,50,000/- was also issued towards rebate and discount which was mutually agreed between the parties. The said debit note was duly collected by plaintiff. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff as defendant has stopped dealing and communicating with the plaintiff. It is the plaintiff who has developed mala fide intention to cheat the defendant. No amount is due and payable by defendant to the plaintiff. The claimed interest is also at exorbitant rate and hence, unlawful. The plaintiff had not raised any demand since 15.11.2021 nor was any amount due from defendant to the plaintiff. It is only after defendant's business was closed due to loss of reputation that the plaintiff, with an ulterior motive, to harass and pressurize the defendant, has filed the present suit. No legal notice dated 15.01.2022 or other wise was received by defendant.
8. On merits, it is denied that plaintiff is a partnership concern and that Sh. Rajat Arora and Sh. Neeraj Arora are its partners. It is denied that defendant placed various orders from time to time for supply of different kind of foams to the plaintiff at its office at Delhi or that plaintiff supplied the same as per defendant's specification and satisfaction. It is claimed that all the transactions took place and all the orders were placed by defendant from its registered office at Noida. It is also stated that CS (COMM) No. 2338/2022 M/s Rajat Foam Sales Vs.Brijbasi Art Press Ltd. Page No. 5 of 34 Digitally signed by ILLA RAWAT ILLA Date:
RAWAT 2024.10.03
16:34:38
+0530
defendant was not making the payment to the plaintiff bill wise. While relying upon averments made in preliminary objections and preliminary submissions, it is reiterated that defendant is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff and it is accordingly prayed that suit of the plaintiff be dismissed with costs.
9. The plaintiff has filed replication reiterating the facts in the plaint and denying contra averments made in the written statement.
10. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed:-
1) Whether the suit has been signed, verified and filed through duly authorized person? (OPP)
2) Whether the plaintiff firm is a registered partnership firm and hence entitled to file the suit against the defendant? (OPP)
3) Whether the goods supplied to defendant by plaintiff were of poor and inferior quality? (OPD)
4) Whether plaintiff was required to give rebate and discount of Rs.15,50,000/- to defendant in terms of debit note issued by defendant? (OPD)
5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of recovery of Rs. 18,95,238.85 against the defendant, as prayed for? (OPP)
6) Whether plaintiff is entitled for interest. If so, at what rate and for which period? (OPP)
7) Relief.
11. In order to prove its case, the plaintiff examined its CS (COMM) No. 2338/2022 M/s Rajat Foam Sales Vs.Brijbasi Art Press Ltd. Page No. 6 of 34 Digitally signed by ILLA RAWAT ILLA Date:
RAWAT 2024.10.03
16:34:37
+0530
partner, Sh. Rajat Arora, as PW1. The PW1 filed his affidavit Ex.PW1/A wherein he relied upon following documents:-
S.No. Details of Documents Exhibit
1. Copy of Partnership Deed dated 22.02.2022 Ex.PW-1/1
2. Copy of Form A issued by the Registrar of Firms Ex.PW-1/2 under Indian Partnership Act.
3. The Power of Attorney dated 22.02.2022. Ex.PW-1/3
4. The invoices issued by the plaintiff. Ex.PW-1/4 (Colly)
5. The statement of account/ledger maintained by the Ex.PW-1/5 plaintiff.
6. The affidavit U/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act. Ex.PW-1/6
7. Office copy legal notice dated 12.01.2022. Ex.PW-1/7
8. The postal receipts Ex.PW-1/8
9. The tracking report Ex.PW-1/9
12. During his cross-examination by counsel for defendant, the PW1 termed it correct that defendant and plaintiff were in business relation since a long time and that no issue had ever arisen between them and that he (PW1) used to physically visit the defendant's office.
13. The PW1 further deposed that the debit notes issued by the defendant were false and that the debit notes which had been received by plaintiff had been shown in Ex.PW-1/5. The debit note filed by the defendant was never received and hence not accepted by the plaintiff. He admitted that he had mentioned in para 5 of plaint that defendant had wrongly and illegally sent a statement of account showing debit notes, rebate and discount of Rs.15,50,000/-. The plaintiff did not send any written communication to defendant after receiving the said statement of account. The PW1 volunteered to state that he had verbally told CS (COMM) No. 2338/2022 M/s Rajat Foam Sales Vs.Brijbasi Art Press Ltd. Page No. 7 of 34 Digitally signed by ILLA RAWAT ILLA Date:
RAWAT 2024.10.03
16:34:37
+0530
defendant that he would not be given adjustment of said amount.
14. When asked to explain meaning of "Journal" entry dated 01.04.2021 and 02.04.2021 reflected from statement of account Ex. PW-1/5, the PW1 expressed his inability to explain the same and stated that he would have to ask his accountant. The PW1 denied that the entries dated 01.04.2021 and 02.04.2021 had been falsely included to create an outstanding amount against the defendant or that plaintiff had already received payment of invoices Ex.PW-1/4 (colly). The PW1 further denied that defendant had made last payment to plaintiff on 15.11.2021 and not on 26.03.2021 or that plaintiff had supplied substandard goods worth Rs. 11,17,655/- to the defendant on 22.12.2020 or that defendant had made a complaint to PW1 regarding the same.
15. When asked to specify the date on which PW1 had received statement of account from defendant showing debit notes, rebates and discount of Rs. 15,50,000/-, the PW1 expressed his inability to state the same.
16. No other witness was examined on behalf of the plaintiff.
17. The defendant examined two witnesses to prove its case. The DW1/ Sh. Harish Malkoti filed his affidavit Ex.DW1/A wherein he relied upon following documents:-
S.No. Details of Documents Exhibit
1. True photocopy of the incorporation certificate of Ex. DW1/1
CS (COMM) No. 2338/2022 M/s Rajat Foam Sales Vs.Brijbasi Art Press Ltd. Page No. 8 of 34 Digitally signed by ILLA RAWAT ILLA Date:
RAWAT 2024.10.03
16:34:38
+0530
the defendant company. (OSR)
2. Original resolution dated 11.05.2024 Ex. DW1/2
3. Original GPA dated 28.05.2024 Ex. DW1/3
4. Print out of statement of defendant's ledger Ex. DW1/4 account
5. Print out of debit note dated 30.06.2021 Ex. DW1/5
6. Print out of emails from Laura Menendez Ex. DW1/6 International Department dated 24.04.2021 and and Ex.
25.06.2024 DW1/77. Certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Ex. DW1/8 Act
18. During his cross-examination, DW1 deposed that he had been working for defendant since last about 18 years though he had not filed any proof thereof except Resolution Ex. DW1/2.
He admitted that authorization letter in favour of Sh. Apurv Garg was on record. He volunteered to state that said person was one of the directors of defendant. He termed it incorrect that authority letter, Ex.DW1/2, did not authorise Sh.Apurv Garg to depose before the court and hence he could not have delegated said authority upon him (DW1).
19. During his further cross-examination, DW1 was asked to give details of the invoices vide which sub-standard/damaged material was supplied to defendant by the plaintiff. In response, DW1 stated that it was against invoice dt. 24.10.2020 (part of exhibit Ex. PW1/4). The DW1 was, however, not aware when it was discovered that plaintiff had supplied sub-standard material. He volunteered to state that the purchase department would be aware about it. He further CS (COMM) No. 2338/2022 M/s Rajat Foam Sales Vs.Brijbasi Art Press Ltd. Page No. 9 of 34 Digitally signed by ILLA RAWAT ILLA Date:
RAWAT 2024.10.03
16:34:42
+0530
deposed that no communication in writing was sent to plaintiff with respect to sub-standard material received against invoice dt. 24.10.2020. The DW1 was not aware where the alleged sub- standard material, received against invoice dt. 24.10.2020, was lying i.e. whether it was with the defendant or the plaintiff. He volunteered to state that the material received vide invoice dt. 24.10.2020 was sold by defendant company to third party and when complaint was received from said third party along with debit note the defendant company came to know that material supplied by plaintiff was defective.
20. The DW1 was not aware when the material received vide invoice dt. 24.10.2020 was sold by defendant company to third party. He was also not aware when defendant company was informed by third party about the defective goods or the date when debit note was received from the third party. Said debit note had not been placed on record by the defendant. He volunteered to state that E-mails Ex. DW1/6 and Ex. DW1/7 pertained to it. He admitted that there was nothing mentioned in emails Ex. DW1/6 and Ex. DW1/7 to connect the same with goods supplied by plaintiff to defendant vide invoice dt. 24.10.2020.
21. During his further cross-examination, DW1 deposed that no written communication was sent to plaintiff by defendant company, after receipt of emails Ex.PW1/6 and Ex.PW1/7, to bring it to the notice of plaintiff that goods supplied by them was defective. The DW1 admitted that there was a gap of 8 months between invoice dated 24.10.2020 and emails, Ex.PW1/6 and CS (COMM) No. 2338/2022 M/s Rajat Foam Sales Vs.Brijbasi Art Press Ltd. Page No. 10 of 34 Digitally signed by ILLA RAWAT ILLA Date:
RAWAT 2024.10.03
16:34:40
+0530
Ex.PW1/7.
22. During his further cross-examination, DW1 admitted that the defendant had purchased goods from plaintiff even after 24.10.2020 and receipt of emails, Ex.PW1/6 & Ex.PW1/7. He denied that there was no defect in goods supplied by plaintiff vide invoice dated 24.10.2020 and hence no communication in writing was given to plaintiff.
23. The plaintiff and defendant had been having business transactions since more than last 5-6 years but DW1 was not sure of it. He deposed that it was possible that plaintiff and defendant had been having business transactions since last about 20 years. He admitted that in statement of account Ex.DW1/4 (inadvertently mentioned as PW1/4) there was an entry of debit note of Rs.40,639/- dated 05.04.2021. He denied that defendant never sent debit note dated 05.04.2021 for Rs.40,639/- to plaintiff or that due to this reason copy of said debit note has not been placed on record.
24. When asked to point out manipulated entries as stated by DW1 in para 5 of his affidavit Ex.DW1/A, the DW1 was unable to do so and stated that same could be only answered by Sh.Vikas, senior accountant. He deposed that no complaint was filed by defendant company against the plaintiff with police authorities in respect of alleged manipulated entries in the statement of account Ex.PW1/5. He admitted that there was a credit entry of Rs.80,854/- dated 15.11.2021 in the statement of account Ex.PW1/5 of defendant, which has been filed by the CS (COMM) No. 2338/2022 M/s Rajat Foam Sales Vs.Brijbasi Art Press Ltd. Page No. 11 of 34 Digitally signed by ILLA RAWAT ILLA Date:
RAWAT 2024.10.03
16:34:38
+0530
plaintiff.
25. When put debit note Ex.DW1/5, DW1 admitted that invoice number and description of defective products was not mentioned in the said debit note not did it bear seal of plaintiff or signatures of any employee of the plaintiff. He further admitted that plaintiff had not given any acknowledgment in respect of alleged damaged goods worth Rs.15,50,000/- to defendant at any point of time nor was defendant asked to issue a debit note of the said amount. The so called mutually agreed terms of business were never reduced to writing. The defendant never sent an email to plaintiff regarding generation of debit note worth Rs.15,50,000/-. He volunteered to state that plaintiff did not have any email. There was no communication in writing from defendant to plaintiff with respect to debit note of Rs.15,50,000/-.
26. During his further cross-examination, DW1 admitted having stated in para 6 of his affidavit Ex.DW1/A that "and earlier to above said payments the debit note was also issued for Rs.15,50,000/- on dated 30.06.2021 which is Ex.DW1/5 in the name of rebate and discount which was mutually agreed by both the parties which was not sent with any illegal means but it was duly collected by the plaintiff", however, debit note Ex.DW1/5 did not find mention of words "rebate and discount". The DW1 termed it incorrect that debit note Ex.DW1/5 was a forged and fabricated document which had been created with the intention to deprive the plaintiff of its lawful dues or that statement of account Ex.DW1/4 was a forged and fabricated document or that entries of debit note dated 05.04.2021 and 30.06.2021 had been CS (COMM) No. 2338/2022 M/s Rajat Foam Sales Vs.Brijbasi Art Press Ltd. Page No. 12 of 34 Digitally signed by ILLA RAWAT ILLA Date:
RAWAT 2024.10.03
16:34:41
+0530
interpolated in the statement of account with intention to defraud the plaintiff. The DW1 admitted that Ex.DW1/4 did not bear signatures of any of the partners of plaintiff nor had the seal of plaintiff firm. He, however, denied that since Ex.DW1/4 did not bear seal and signatures of plaintiff, it could not be said to be a mutually agreed statement of account. He volunteered to state that plaintiff never gave receiving of any debit note and that even in respect of debit notes reflected from statement of account of plaintiff, no receiving was given. He admitted that no legal notice or written communication was sent to plaintiff when it was brought to the notice of defendant company that the plaintiff had failed to give adjustment in respect of debit notes dated 05.04.2021 and 30.06.2021. The DW1 denied that Ex.DW1/6 and Ex.DW1/7 were forged and manipulated documents or that they were never received by the defendant.
27. During his further cross-examination, DW1 deposed that the defendant company was assessed for Income Tax and that Balance sheets were prepared by Chartered Accountant. The DW1 was not aware if the debit notes were reflected in the balance sheet of the defendant company. He admitted that ITRs of the defendant for the relevant period had not been filed to prove that debit notes were reflected in the balance sheet of the defendant company. The defendant company suffered losses to the tune of Rs.40-50 lakhs on account of damaged goods supplied by the plaintiff. He admitted that documents pertaining to alleged loss of Rs.40-50 lakhs had not been placed on record.
28. The DW1 admitted having stated in para 9 of his CS (COMM) No. 2338/2022 M/s Rajat Foam Sales Vs.Brijbasi Art Press Ltd. Page No. 13 of 34 Digitally signed by ILLA RAWAT ILLA Date:
RAWAT 2024.10.03
16:34:39
+0530
affidavit Ex.DW1/A that "since thereafter the defendant have stopped dealing or communication with the plaintiff and as stated above the business of defendant was also closed thereafter". He explained that said words meant that defendant had closed its business dealings with the plaintiff company and not that the defendant had closed its business altogether.
29. During his further cross-examination, DW1 deposed that entries in statement of account Ex.PW1/4 and debit note Ex.PW1/5 were made by him. He, however, denied that he had wrongly stated in his earlier cross-examination that only Sh. Vikas, Senior Accountant would be able to state with respect to dealings with the plaintiff company or that he had full knowledge regarding the same. The DW1 explained that he had only made entry with respect to debit note dated 12.04.2021 for Rs.18,880/- while the remaining entries were made by Sh. Vikas, Sr. Accountant. The debit note Ex.DW1/5 (inadvertently mentioned as PW1/5) had not been prepared by him.
30. The DW1 further deposed that during the course of his duties for defendant company, he looked after banking i.e. he filled up bank vouchers in tally. The DW1 had seat in the Administrative Department. The entries in account books were made by him as well as other staff. The DW1 denied that defendant company was liable to pay a sum of Rs.18,95,238.95 to plaintiff firm.
31. The defendant also examined Sh. Vikas Chhabra, its Accounts Manager, as DW2. The DW2 filed his affidavit CS (COMM) No. 2338/2022 M/s Rajat Foam Sales Vs.Brijbasi Art Press Ltd. Page No. 14 of 34 Digitally signed by ILLA RAWAT ILLA Date:
RAWAT 2024.10.03
16:34:39
+0530
Ex.DW2/A wherein he relied upon following documents:-
32. During his cross-examination, DW2 deposed that he had been working for defendant company since June, 2007. He was not issued appointment letter when he joined defendant company but had an identity card. He admitted that there was no separate resolution issued by company in his favour authorizing him to appear and to depose on behalf of defendant company.
33. The DW2 further deposed that the plaintiff firm and defendant company were in business since last about 20-25 years. The plaintiff company supplied some material against challan and thereafter issued invoices. He admitted that invoices were generated against all goods supplied by plaintiff to defendant. The DW2 was the Senior Accounts Manager and there were 8-10 employees working under him in the Accounts department. Entries were made by the employees working under him and the same were finally checked by him. Mostly the statement of account was called from the plaintiff company once a year when balance sheet of defendant company was to be prepared. The statement of account so received was tallied with the account maintained by the defendant company.
34. During his further cross-examination, DW2 deposed that they had received the damaged or inferior quality goods against the bill issued in October/November 2020 for a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- approximately. There were damaged goods received in the subsequent orders also.
35. When asked to specify the invoice number CS (COMM) No. 2338/2022 M/s Rajat Foam Sales Vs.Brijbasi Art Press Ltd. Page No. 15 of 34 Digitally signed by ILLA RAWAT ILLA Date:
RAWAT 2024.10.03
16:34:40
+0530
alongwith its date and amount, vide which damaged goods were received, the DW2 deposed that he could do only after going through the ledger account of either the defendant or the plaintiff. When put defendant's ledger account statement Ex.DW1/4, the DW2 pointed out to entries dated 12.05.2021 for Rs.36,580/- vide invoice no.5474 and of 10.06.2021 for Rs.7,50,735/- vide invoice no.5540.
36. At this stage, the DW2 was asked to state as to when the defendant company had come to know that goods supplied by plaintiff vide invoice no. 5474, 5540 and invoice issued in October/November 2020 were defective. The DW2 deposed that the defendant company came to know in June 2021 regarding the defective goods supplied by the plaintiff vide said invoices.
37. During his further cross-examination, the DW2 deposed that the goods supplied by plaintiff were received by the defendant company in the first instance before they were dispatched to third party. Explaining the procedure followed upon receipt of goods from plaintiff, the DW2 deposed that the foam so received was cut into pieces and thereafter books were prepared. It took 3-4 months to prepare books. Thereafter, books were supplied to customers which took another 2-3 months. It was only after the books reached the customers that they made complaint and defendant came to know that goods supplied were defective.
38. The DW2 was asked to clarify if employees of defendant company had checked the foam received from plaintiff firm before it was cut in pieces. The DW2 replied in negative. He CS (COMM) No. 2338/2022 M/s Rajat Foam Sales Vs.Brijbasi Art Press Ltd. Page No. 16 of 34 Digitally signed by ILLA RAWAT ILLA Date:
RAWAT 2024.10.03
16:34:37
+0530
further stated that cutting was done by labourers and the material was not checked before it. He further deposed that after preparing the books, the finished products was also not checked before being exported.
39. A suggestion was put to DW2 that since the foam delivered by plaintiff company was not checked before cutting, preparing the books and exporting, he (DW2) could not state with certainty that the goods supplied by plaintiff were substandard. Rather, the damage could be due to the process of preparing books used by defendant. In response, DW2 stated that the client had made complaint regarding the thickness of the cover i.e. thickness of the foam and so he could say that it was due to substandard goods supplied by plaintiff.
40. The DW2 denied the suggestion that the damage to thickness was due to the process used by defendant to prepare the books and not due to supply of substandard material by the plaintiff. He admitted that no written communication was sent to plaintiff after complaint was received from third party and that even after receipt of emails Ex.PW1/6 and Ex.PW1/7, defendant company continued to purchase material from the plaintiff. He further deposed that the employees of defendant had checked the quality of foam purchased from plaintiff company post receipt of emails Ex.PW1/6 and Ex.PW1/7 and maintained record as and when the goods i.e. the foam is checked. He admitted that no such record of checking of the goods had been filed in the present case. He also deposed that the mutually agreed terms of business between plaintiff and defendant were oral and not in CS (COMM) No. 2338/2022 M/s Rajat Foam Sales Vs.Brijbasi Art Press Ltd. Page No. 17 of 34 Digitally signed by ILLA RAWAT ILLA Date:
RAWAT 2024.10.03
16:34:39
+0530
writing.
41. During his further cross-examination, DW2 was put debit note Ex.DW1/5. He admitted that it did not find mention of specific invoices which had substandard goods and further did not find signatures of any employee/partner of the plaintiff firm nor carried plaintiff firm's seal. He denied that no debit note in respect of debit entry dated 05.04.2021 was generated by defendant company nor was any such debit note sent to the plaintiff. Though he volunteered to state that the plaintiff did not make entry of debit note in its account, he admitted that copy of debit note generated on 05.04.2021 had not been placed on record. No document had been placed on record from which it could be ascertain that debit note dated 05.04.2021 and 30.06.2021 were given to plaintiff. He again volunteered to state that even in respect of debit entries were reflected from statement of account of plaintiff, Ex.DW1/4, the plaintiff did not give receiving despite receipt of debit notes. He admitted that copies of none of the debit notes in respect of debit entries reflected from Ex.DW1/5 had been placed on court record. He then deposed that he had read the written statement before it was signed. He admitted that the process by which foam received from plaintiff was utilized by defendant company was not elaborated upon in the written statement.
42. When put address A-81, Sector-5, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida, U.P.-201301, mentioned on legal notice, Ex.PW1/7, the DW2 admitted it was the address of defendant company and that all communications addressed and sent to said address were received by the defendant company. He, however, CS (COMM) No. 2338/2022 M/s Rajat Foam Sales Vs.Brijbasi Art Press Ltd. Page No. 18 of 34 Digitally signed by ILLA RAWAT ILLA Date:
RAWAT 2024.10.03
16:34:42
+0530
deposed that the legal notice Ex.PW1/7 which was sent at the same address was never received by the defendant company. The DW2 was unable to admit or deny if the tracking report of legal notice sent through speed post reflected that the parcel was delivered at the defendant company. No legal action was taken against the plaintiff when plaintiff failed to give adjustment in respect of debit note Ex.DW1/5. The DW2 denied that defendant did not take any such legal action or filed complaint against the plaintiff as debit note Ex.DW1/5 was wrongly generated.
43. During his further cross-examination, DW2 deposed that defendant company was assessed to income tax and it Balance sheets were prepared by Chartered Accountant. The debit notes were reflected in the balance sheet of the defendant company. He admitted that ITRs of the defendant for the relevant period had not been filed on court record to prove that debit notes were reflected in the balance sheet of the defendant company. The DW2 denied that defendant company did not reflect debit notes in balance sheets or due to this reason copies of ITRs/balance sheet for relevant period had not been filed on court record. He further deposed that defendant company had suffered losses to the tune of Rs.45 lakhs on account of damaged goods supplied by the plaintiff. The said damage was assessed based on credit notes issued to the third party. He admitted that documents/credit notes pertaining to alleged loss of Rs.45 lakhs had not been placed on record. Nothing had been placed on court record to bring out that such credit note was generated by the defendant company. The DW2 denied that Ex.DW1/5 to Ex.DW1/7 were forged and fabricated.
CS (COMM) No. 2338/2022 M/s Rajat Foam Sales Vs.Brijbasi Art Press Ltd. Page No. 19 of 34 Digitally signed by ILLA RAWAT ILLA Date:
RAWAT 2024.10.03
16:34:40
+0530
44. Arguments were addressed by Sh.Prashant Batra, Counsel for plaintiff and Ms. Seema Chhabra, Counsel for defendant who also filed written submissions reiterating the said arguments.
45. I have heard arguments of Learned Counsels for the parties and perused the record as well as written submissions on their behalf and my findings on the aforesaid issues are as under:-
ISSUE No.1:-
Whether the suit has been signed, verified and filed through duly authorized person? (OPP) AND ISSUE No.2:-
Whether the plaintiff firm is a registered partnership firm and hence entitled to file the suit against the defendant? (OPP)
46. Both these issues are taken up together as they are inter-connected. The onus of proving these issues was on plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed copy of partnership deed of the plaintiff firm and proved the same as Ex.PW1/1. Copy of Form A issued by Registrar of Firms under Indian Partnership Act has been proved as Ex.PW1/2 and the Power of Attorney dated 22.02.2022 authorizing PW1/Sh. Rajat Arora to sign and verify the plaint, institute the suit and to depose on behalf of plaintiff has been proved as Ex.PW1/3. On basis of Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/3, it is contended, on behalf of plaintiff, that plaintiff has succeeded in proving that plaintiff firm is a registered partnership CS (COMM) No. 2338/2022 M/s Rajat Foam Sales Vs.Brijbasi Art Press Ltd. Page No. 20 of 34 Digitally signed by ILLA RAWAT ILLA Date:
RAWAT 2024.10.03
16:34:38
+0530
firm and hence competent to sue and that suit has been signed, verified and filed through duly authorized person.
47. Per contra, counsel for defendant has contended that Ex.PW1/2 i.e. Form A issued by Registrar of Firms reveals that there were three partners in the plaintiff firm. Ms. Devi Dutta, whose name also appears as one of the partners in Ex.PW1/2 had expired. The partnership firm M/s Rajat Foam Sales stood dissolved pursuant to death of Ms. Devi Dutta. No new certificate of registration of partnership was obtained by the remaining partners and in these circumstances the plaintiff firm was neither entitled to file the suit against the defendant nor can the suit be stated to have been signed, verified and filed through a duly authorized person.
48. It is noteworthy that no question was put to PW1 during his cross-examination regarding death of Ms. Devi Dutta and/or the fact that plaintiff firm stood dissolved pursuant to death of Ms. Devi Dutta or that there was any defect in Power of Attorney Ex.PW1/3 issued in favour of Sh. Rajat Arora, who is one of the partners of plaintiff firm, to sign and verify the plaint and to institute the suit on behalf of plaintiff and further to depose as a witness on behalf of plaintiff firm. Though in written statement, defendant had taken a plea that plaintiff had failed to file documents pertaining to its partnership firm and/or delegation of powers by plaintiff in favour of Sh. Rajat Arora to file the present suit, the plaintiff from documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/3 has succeeded in proving that the plaintiff is a registered partnership firm and Sh. Rajat Arora, who is one of the CS (COMM) No. 2338/2022 M/s Rajat Foam Sales Vs.Brijbasi Art Press Ltd. Page No. 21 of 34 Digitally signed by ILLA RAWAT ILLA Date:
RAWAT 2024.10.03
16:34:37
+0530
partners of the firm, is duly authorized to sign and verify the plaint and to institute the suit on behalf of plaintiff firm. He is also proved to be competent witness and is empowered to depose on behalf of plaintiff by virtue of Power of Attorney Ex.PW1/3.
49. The counsel for plaintiff has relied upon judgment in case of Gajanand vs. Sardarmal & Anr., AIR 1961 RAJ 223 wherein following observations in case of Lahore High Court in Mool Chand vs. Mul Chand, AIR 1923 Lah 197 have been referred to:-
".....A Division Bench of the Lahore High Court in Mool Chand v. Mul Chand, AIR 1923 Lah 197 has enunciated the proposition that the rule of law now seems to be firmly established that debts due to the trading partnership stand on a different looting from debts due under ordinary contracts and when one of the partners dies, the surviving partners can sue for the recovery of the debts due to the firm without making the legal representatives of the deceased partners party to the suit."
It was then observed :-
"A right to sue is conferred by substantive law and if that right to sue is conferred by law on the remaining members of the partnership, it is not necessary that they should assert this right before a court of law in the only manner provided by Order 30 by bringing a suit in the name of the firm and not in their individual names. Nor can it be laid down that Section 45 of the Contract Act is modified only to the extent provided under Order 30, Rule 4 and that it is not modified by Section 47 of the Partnership Act."
50. From the observations made in the above mentioned judgment as also from the documents placed on record by plaintiff and proved in accordance with law by PW1, the only conclusion that can be drawn the plaintiff firm is a registered partnership firm which is entitled to file the suit against the CS (COMM) No. 2338/2022 M/s Rajat Foam Sales Vs.Brijbasi Art Press Ltd. Page No. 22 of 34 Digitally signed by ILLA RAWAT ILLA Date:
RAWAT 2024.10.03
16:34:41
+0530
defendant. Further, Sh. Rajat Arora, who is one of the partners of plaintiff firm, is duly authorized to sign and verify the suit and to institute the suit on behalf of plaintiff.
Both the issues are decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE No.3:-
Whether the goods supplied to defendant by plaintiff were of poor and inferior quality? (OPD)
51. Onus of proving this issue was on defendant who has alleged that plaintiff had supplied poor quality of goods to defendant due to which defendant suffered huge financial loss and lost its reputation in the market.
52. Admittedly, plaintiff and defendant had been in business since a very long time and there was no complaint regarding the quality of foam supplied by plaintiff to defendant during the entire period the parties had business relations, save and except, since the year 2020 as claimed by defendant. It is alleged that due to poor and inferior quality of foam supplied by plaintiff to defendant, the defendant suffered loss of business and reputation regarding which defendant informed the plaintiff but plaintiff did not take the complaints made by defendant seriously. Ultimately defendant had to stop buying foam from the plaintiff.
53. In order to prove that the quality of goods supplied by plaintiff was poor, the defendant has examined DW1/Sh. Harish Malkotia, Manager (Personnel & Admin) who proved the emails dated 24.04.2021 and 25.06.2024, received from Laura CS (COMM) No. 2338/2022 M/s Rajat Foam Sales Vs.Brijbasi Art Press Ltd. Page No. 23 of 34 Digitally signed by ILLA RAWAT ILLA Date:
RAWAT 2024.10.03
16:34:40
+0530
Menendez International Department, as Ex. DW1/6 and Ex.DW1/7 respectively. The defendant also examined DW2/Sh.Vikas Chhabra, its Accounts Manager as DW2 to corroborate the testimony of DW1 Sh. Harish Malkotia.
54. The counsel for defendant has relied upon testimony of DW1 and DW2 as well as emails Ex.DW1/6 and Ex.DW1/7 to contend that plaintiff had supplied defective and inferior quality foam to defendant due to which defendant suffered considerable loss of reputation and business in the market.
55. Per contra, counsel for plaintiff has contended that defendant did not check the material received from plaintiff at any point of time and hence cannot take a plea of defective goods. Further plaintiff was never informed about the defective goods. The plea of defective goods has been taken by plaintiff as an afterthought to put forth some defence to the claim of plaintiff and ought to be rejected.
56. As per the mandate of Section 41 of the Sale of Goods Act, the purchaser not having inspected the goods in question prior to delivery, has a right to inspect the same on delivery and report defects within a reasonable time of delivery. If not rejected within reasonable time, mandate of Section 42 stipulates that the purchaser would be deemed to have accepted the goods. Section 41 and Section 42 of the Sale of Goods Act read as under:-
"41. Buyer's right of examining the goods.-
CS (COMM) No. 2338/2022 M/s Rajat Foam Sales Vs.Brijbasi Art Press Ltd. Page No. 24 of 34 Digitally signed by ILLA RAWAT ILLA Date: RAWAT 2024.10.03 16:34:39 +0530
(1) Where goods are delivered to the buyer which he has not previously examined, he is not deemed to have accepted them unless and until he has had a reasonable opportunity of examining them for the purpose of ascertaining whether they are in conformity with the contract.
(2) Unless otherwise agreed, when the seller tenders delivery of goods to the buyer, he is bound, on request, to afford the buyer a reasonable opportunity of examining the goods for the purpose of ascertaining whether they are in conformity with the contract.
42. Acceptance.- The buyer is deemed to have accepted the goods when he intimates to the seller that he has accepted them, or when the goods have been delivered to him and he does any act in relation to them which is inconsistent with the ownership of the seller, or when, after the lapse of a reasonable time, he retains the goods without intimating to the seller that he has rejected them."
57. Admittedly, no communication has been placed on record by defendant from which it can be concluded that defendant had ever communicated to the plaintiff regarding defective foam, if any, supplied by plaintiff. The testimony of two witnesses examined by defendant namely DW1/Sh. Harish Malkoti and DW2/Sh.Vikas Chhabra is also sufficient to bring out that the defence taken by defendant is sham.
58. The DW1 was asked to give the details of invoices vide which sub-standard/damaged material was supplied to defendant by the plaintiff, during his cross-examination. In response, DW1 stated that it was against invoice dated 24.10.2020 (part of exhibit Ex. PW1/4). The DW1 was, however, not aware when it was discovered that plaintiff had supplied sub-standard material. Admittedly, no communication in writing was sent to plaintiff with respect to sub-standard material CS (COMM) No. 2338/2022 M/s Rajat Foam Sales Vs.Brijbasi Art Press Ltd. Page No. 25 of 34 Digitally signed by ILLA RAWAT ILLA Date:
RAWAT 2024.10.03
16:34:37
+0530
received against invoice dated 24.10.2020. The DW1 also deposed during his cross-examination that the material received vide invoice dated 24.10.2020 was sold by defendant company to third party and when complaint was received from said third party along with debit note the defendant company came to know that material supplied by plaintiff was defective. He was, however, not aware when the material, received vide invoice dated 24.10.2020, was sold by defendant company to the third party. He was also not aware when defendant company was informed by the third party about the defective goods or the date when debit note was received from the third party. Admittedly, the debit note received from third party has not been placed on record by the defendant. Further, there is nothing mentioned in emails Ex. DW1/6 and Ex. DW1/7 to connect the same with goods supplied by plaintiff to defendant vide invoice dated 24.10.2020.
59. The testimony of DW2 brings out further that there was a specific process adopted by defendant, after receipt of material from the plaintiff, before end product was supplied to the third party. The DW2 deposed that after receipt of goods from the plaintiff, the foam was cut into pieces to prepare books. It took 2-3 months to prepare books which were supplied to customers which took another 2-3 months. It was only after books reached customers and they made the complaint to defendant, the defendant, in turn blamed plaintiff for supply of defective goods/foam. The DW1, however, admitted that employees of defendant company had not checked the foam received from plaintiff before it was cut in pieces and even after CS (COMM) No. 2338/2022 M/s Rajat Foam Sales Vs.Brijbasi Art Press Ltd. Page No. 26 of 34 Digitally signed by ILLA RAWAT ILLA Date:
RAWAT 2024.10.03
16:34:36
+0530
cutting was done by labourers the material was not checked. The finished products i.e. the books were also not checked before being exported.
60. Since the original product/foam received from plaintiff was subjected to entire process of cutting and pasting and being transformed into books, without the initial product i.e. the foam having been checked by the employees of defendant, it cannot be concluded that the foam supplied by plaintiff was defective. Per se the defendant had no complaint qua the products supplied by plaintiff and had drawn such a conclusion only after it received complaint from the third party to whom the goods were dispatched but in a form different from the original product/foam supplied by plaintiff. Even after defendant received complaint regarding the quality of foam, it did not inform the plaintiff about alleged defect. There is nothing on record from which it can be concluded that plaintiff was the only buyer from whom defendant used to purchase foam and thus it cannot be assumed that the books supplied to alleged buyer were prepared from the foam supplied by plaintiff or the complained damage of poor quality of books was directly attributable to plaintiff and not the process by which the foam was cut and processed to prepare the books. It also appears from email Ex.DW1/7 that the third party had returned the books supplied by defendant to it. No such material was either sent to the plaintiff or was produced by the defendant before the Court. It also appears that no effort was made by defendant to examine the returned books to find out where the defect originated from. On basis of complaint made by third party the defendant found an easy escape route by CS (COMM) No. 2338/2022 M/s Rajat Foam Sales Vs.Brijbasi Art Press Ltd. Page No. 27 of 34 Digitally signed by ILLA RAWAT ILLA Date:
RAWAT 2024.10.03
16:34:41
+0530
blaming plaintiff of supplying defective foam.
61. The plea of defective goods taken by defendant is even otherwise not maintainable in view of judgment in case of 'Lohmann Rausher Gmbh vs Medisphere Marketing Pvt. Ltd.' 117 (2004) DLT 95 wherein it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi:-
"......21. As per the mandate of Section 41 of the Sale of Goods Act, the defendant not having inspected the goods in question prior to delivery, had a right to inspect the case on delivery and report defects within a reasonable time of delivery. If not rejected within reasonable time, mandate of Section 42 stipulates that the defendant would be deemed to have accepted the goods."
62. The nutshell of foregoing discussion is that defendant has failed to prove that the goods supplied to defendant by plaintiff were of poor or inferior quality. This issue is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE No.4:-
Whether plaintiff was required to give rebate and discount of Rs.15,50,000/- to defendant in terms of debit note issued by defendant? (OPD)
63. Onus of proving this issue was on defendant who claims that plaintiff was required to give rebate and discount of Rs.15,50,000/- to defendant. The defendant has relied upon testimony of DW1/Harish Malkoti and DW2/Vikas Chhabra to prove that it was entitled to adjustment of Rs.15,50,000/- in the calculated due amount by the plaintiff.
CS (COMM) No. 2338/2022 M/s Rajat Foam Sales Vs.Brijbasi Art Press Ltd. Page No. 28 of 34 Digitally signed by ILLA RAWAT ILLA Date: RAWAT 2024.10.03 16:34:40 +0530
64. In his cross-examination, DW1 could not point out any manipulated entries in the statement of account Ex.PW1/5 filed by the plaintiff. The fact that there was no manipulation in the statement of account maintained by plaintiff company is proved further by testimony of DW2 who stated that plaintiff company generated invoices against all goods supplied to defendant. The DW2 is a Senior Accounts Officer of defendant company and there were 8-10 employees working under him in the Accounts Department as per his testimony. Entries were made by him and employees working under him and were finally checked by him. The DW2 also deposed that the statement of account was called from plaintiff company and tallied with account maintained by defendant company, once a year, when balance sheet of defendant company was prepared.
65. From cross-examination of DW1, it is clearly brought out that there was a debit entry dated 05.04.2021 for Rs.40,639/- in the statement of account Ex.DW1/4, filed by the defendant, however, a debit note of said amount was never sent to plaintiff nor was its copy placed on record. The debit note Ex.DW1/5 did not find mention of invoice number and description of defective goods. It also did not bear seal of plaintiff firm or signatures of any partner/employee of the plaintiff. Admittedly, plaintiff never acknowledged that it had supplied damaged goods worth Rs.15,50,000/- to defendant at any point of time nor was defendant asked to issue debit note of the said amount. The defendant too did not sent email or written communication to plaintiff regarding generation of debit note worth Rs.15,50,000/-. The alleged mutually agreed terms of CS (COMM) No. 2338/2022 M/s Rajat Foam Sales Vs.Brijbasi Art Press Ltd. Page No. 29 of 34 Digitally signed by ILLA RAWAT ILLA Date:
RAWAT 2024.10.03
16:34:41
+0530
business were never specified by the defendant. No legal notice or written communication was sent to plaintiff by the defendant even when it was brought to the notice of defendant that plaintiff had failed to give adjustment in respect of debit notes dated 05.04.2021 and 30.06.2021.
66. Contrary to statement made by DW1 that the quantum of damaged goods was to the tune of Rs.15,50,000/-, the DW2 stated that they had received damaged or inferior quality goods worth Rs.5,50,000/- against bill issued in October/November 2020. When asked to specify invoice number alongwith its date and amount, the DW2 refreshed his memory from ledger account statement Ex.DW1/4 and pointed out to entry in respect of invoice no.5474 dated 12.05.2021 for Rs.36,580/- and invoice no.5540 dated 10.06.2021 for Rs.7,50,735/-. He also deposed that defendant came to know of the defect in respect of goods supplied vide these two invoices in June, 2021 when complaint was received from third party vide emails dated 24.04.2021 and 25.06.2024, Ex.DW1/6 and Ex.DW1/7, respectively. The debit note Ex.DW1/5, however, did not find mention of specific invoices vide which plaintiff had supplied sub-standard goods.
67. Admittedly, defendant is a company which is assessed to income tax and filed balance sheets prepared by Chartered Accountant. Nothing has been placed on record by the defendant that the claimed debit in sum of Rs.15,50,000/- were reflected in the balance sheet of defendant company. The claim that defendant suffered losses to the tune of Rs.40-50 lakhs on CS (COMM) No. 2338/2022 M/s Rajat Foam Sales Vs.Brijbasi Art Press Ltd. Page No. 30 of 34 Digitally signed by ILLA RAWAT ILLA Date:
RAWAT 2024.10.03
16:34:38
+0530
account of damaged goods supplied by plaintiff was also not supported by any documentary evidence.
68. The debit note Ex.DW1/5 placed on record by defendant is totally devoid of material particulars of invoice numbers, date and amount of the specific invoices. It is not clear how defendant arrived at figure of Rs.15,50,000/- towards damages without producing any record of the invoices or the quantum of goods which were found defective out of each of the invoices vide which plaintiff had supplied goods to defendant. There is even otherwise variance in the alleged quantum of damaged goods as stated by DW1 and DW2 in their respective testimonies. Moreover, the alleged amount of rebate, referred to in the written statement filed by the defendant, does not reflect from either the statement of account or the debit note filed by the defendant. The defendant has completely failed to discharge to onus of proving this issue and hence this issue is decided against the defendant.
ISSUE No.5:-
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of recovery of Rs.18,95,238.85 against the defendant, as prayed for? (OPP)
69. The onus of proving this issue was on plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that the firm had supplied the different kinds of foam to the defendant against the orders placed by defendant from time to time and raised various invoices/bills. All the material supplied by plaintiff was accepted by defendant without any complaint regarding defect and/or damage in the CS (COMM) No. 2338/2022 M/s Rajat Foam Sales Vs.Brijbasi Art Press Ltd. Page No. 31 of 34 Digitally signed by ILLA RAWAT ILLA Date:
RAWAT 2024.10.03
16:34:41
+0530
quality and quantity of the material. In discharge of its liability, defendant made a part payment of Rs.2,50,000/-, through cheque, to the plaintiff on 26.03.2021 and thereafter failed to make payment of the balance amount of Rs.18,95,238.35 despite repeated requests and reminders by the plaintiff. It is further the case of the plaintiff that instead of making payment of outstanding amount, defendant with a malafide intention, sent a wrong statement of account to the plaintiff reflecting therein some debit notes, rebate and discount amounting to Rs.15,50,000/- which were never issued by the plaintiff. The plaintiff had issued legal notice dated 12.01.2022, Ex.PW1/7, despite which defendant failed to clear the outstanding. The defendant further failed to join pre-litigation mediation proceedings leaving the issue of balance payment unresolved thereby compelling plaintiff to file the present suit.
70. The plaintiff has examined PW1-Sh. Rajat Arora, one of its partner, to prove its case. The testimony of PW1 has been reproduced at length in the foregoing paragraphs. The fact that defendant had placed order for supply of material/foam and that the same was supplied by plaintiff to defendant has not been disputed. The only defence raised by the defendant is that the plaintiff had supplied poor and inferior quality material/foam due to which defendant suffered huge losses and that the plaintiff had failed to give adjustment of debit note to the tune of Rs.15,50,000/- towards rebate and discount in the calculated due amount.
As already observed while deciding issues no.3 and 4 that defendant has failed to discharge the onus of proving that CS (COMM) No. 2338/2022 M/s Rajat Foam Sales Vs.Brijbasi Art Press Ltd. Page No. 32 of 34 Digitally signed by ILLA RAWAT ILLA Date:
RAWAT 2024.10.03
16:34:38
+0530
the goods supplied by plaintiff to it were of poor and inferior quality or that plaintiff was required to give any rebate and discount of Rs.15,50,000/- to defendant in terms of debit note issued by defendant. Even otherwise, perusal of affidavit of admission and denial of documents of plaintiff, filed by defendant on 31.05.2024 reveals that defendant has not only admitted invoices, Ex.PW1/4 (colly), but also the statement of account, Ex.PW1/5, of plaintiff, for period from 01.04.2020 till 31.03.2022. Thus of its own admission and further having failed to prove its defence, defendant has no feet to stand on.
71. The plaintiff, on the other hand, from the testimony of PW1/Rajat Aneja, its partner, as well as documents placed on record by it and proved in accordance with law by PW1, has succeeded in proving its claim against the defendant. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to decree in sum of Rs.18,95,238.85 against the defendant. This issue is decided in favour plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE No.6:-
Whether plaintiff is entitled for interest. If so, at what rate and for which period? (OPP)
72. The invoices filed by plaintiff do not specify the rate at which the interest would be payable or any credit period. The counsel for plaintiff has contended that interest has been claimed @ 21% as per prevalent market practice but no such practice has been established. The claimed rate of 21% per annum appears to be on higher side. Accordingly, it is deemed appropriate that plaintiff is awarded simple interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of CS (COMM) No. 2338/2022 M/s Rajat Foam Sales Vs.Brijbasi Art Press Ltd. Page No. 33 of 34 Digitally signed by ILLA RAWAT ILLA Date:
RAWAT 2024.10.03
16:34:36
+0530
last payment i.e. 15.11.2021 till the realization of the decreetal amount.
R E L I E F :-
73. In view of foregoing discussion, I pass a decree for recovery of sum of Rs.18,95,238.85 (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Ninety Five Thousand Two Hundred Thirty Eight and Eighty Five paisa only) in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant, with simple interest @ 12% per annum on the said amount from the date of last payment i.e. 15.11.2021 till realization of the same.
The defendant will further pay the full costs of the suit and additionally Rs.1,000/- spent by the plaintiff in DLSA for invoking pre-institution mediation proceedings.
Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after due Digitally compliance. signed by ILLA RAWAT ILLA Date:
Announced in the open Court RAWAT 2024.10.03 16:35:29 on 3rd October, 2024. +0530 (ILLA RAWAT) District Judge Commercial Court-03 Central District, THC, Delhi CS (COMM) No. 2338/2022 M/s Rajat Foam Sales Vs.Brijbasi Art Press Ltd. Page No. 34 of 34