Delhi District Court
M/S Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs Opal Health Care on 20 December, 2023
:: 1 ::
DLCT010054492019
IN THE COURT OF MS.KAVERI BAWEJA, DISTRICT
JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-07,
CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS (Comm.) - 558/2019
IN THE MATTER OF:
M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals
Shop No.230-231, IInd Floor, 3,
Vardhaman Diamond Plaza,
D.B. Gupta Road, Motia Khan,
Paharganj, New Delhi-110055
Through its Authorized Partner
Mr. Shailen Doshi ..... Plaintiff.
Versus
M/s Opal Health Care
A Partnership Firm
Through its Partner
Mr. Pranesh Trikha
At Village Zarifa Veeran,
CSSRI, Uchani Road,
Karnal-132001, Haryana
Also at:-
32D, Model Town,
Karnal-132001, Haryana ... Defendant
M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019
:: 2 ::
Date of Institution : 25.04.2019
Judgment Reserved on : 23.11.2023
Date of judgment : 20.12.2023
JUDGMENT
Case of the Plaintiff:-
1. Plaintiff has filed the instant suit against the above named Defendant seeking recovery of Rs.42,89,369.24, along with interest.
2. Plaintiff is stated to be a registered partnership firm engaged in trading of chemicals, dyes, solvents, pigments, food chemicals and colours. Plaintiff used to deliver the products on the basis of order placed by Defendant to the Plaintiff and the goods were delivered at the destination desired by Defendant at the time of placing of order.
3. As per the plaint, Plaintiff raised the following invoices after receiving purchase orders from the Defendant through email and telephone:-
Purchase Order date Invoice No. & date Amount of Invoice in Rs.
13.04.2015 13862 dated 16.04.2015 48,040.00 20.04.2015 13893 dated 20.04.2015 3,27,620.00 27.04.2015 13930 dated 27.04.2015 47,220.00 28.04.2015 13952 dated 30.04.2015 1,48,000.00 28.04.2015 13986 dated 07.05.2015 31,975.00 28.04.2015 14019 dated 11.05.2015 27,028.00 11.06.2015 14242 dated 11.06.2015 47,275.00 M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 3 ::
12.06.2015 14251 dated 12.06.2015 90,980.00 07.07.2015 14388 dated 07.07.2015 1,08,220.00 07.07.2015 14390 dated 07.07.2015 1,04,140.00 22.07.2015 14528 dated 24.07.2015 52,680.00 22.07.2015 14545 dated 29.07.2015 30,500.00 11.08.2015 14652 dated 13.08.2015 1,04,190.00 21.08.2015 14732 dated 26.08.2015 50,490.00 11.08.2015 14734 dated 26.08.2015 1,19,932.00 12.09.2015 14871 dated 14.09.2015 85,780.00 17.09.2015 14903 dated 17.09.2015 22,540.00 17.09.2015 14912 dated 17.09.2015 39,370.00 23.09.2015 15013 dated 05.10.2015 1,88,800.00 09.10.2015 15084 dated 10.10.2015 23,610.00 06.11.2015 15281 dated 06.11.2015 46,815.00 06.11.2015 15282 dated 06.11.2015 36,922.00 06.11.2015 15302 dated 16.11.2015 1,06,995.00 17.11.2015 15328 dated 20.11.2015 3,27,620.00 25.11.2015 15394 dated 27.11.2015 2,78,300.00 25.11.2015 15433 dated 02.12.2015 3,98,200.00 19.01.2016 15797 dated 19.01.2016 79,150.00
02.02.2016 15899 dated 02.02.2016 1,88,800.00 05.02.2016 15923 dated 05.02.2016 33,860.00 18.02.2016 16073 dated 20.02.2016 55,200.00 18.02.2016 16074 dated 20.02.2016 87,310.00 09.03.2016 16187 dated 09.03.2016 55,330.00 25.03.2016 16324 dated 25.03.2016 39,420.00 10.05.2016 16696 dated 10.05.2016 49,980.00 13.06.2016 16966 dated 13.06.2016 31,110.00 02.07.2016 17147 dated 05.07.2016 43,090.00 06.07.2016 17259 dated 19.07.2016 2,09,300.00 30.07.2016 17366 dated 30.07.2016 15,910.00 30.07.2016 17367 dated 30.07.2016 79,150.00 06.07.2016 17511 dated 19.08.2016 39,370.00 19.09.2016 17778 dated 19.09.2016 1,57,690.00 M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 4 ::
01.12.2016 18385 dated 02.12.2016 16,980.00 07.12.2016 18423 dated 07.12.2016 2,14,350.00 01.12.2016 18471 dated 15.12.2016 16,980.00 27.12.2016 18588 dated 27.12.2016 39,420.00 05.01.2017 18635 dated 05.01.2017 24,630.00
4. It is further averred in the plaint that as per ledger maintained by the Plaintiff firm of Defendant, a sum of Rs.35,75,069.24 was due against the Defendant as on 01.04.2017.
Pursuant to the aforesaid due amount, the Defendant assured to make the balance payments and issued the following cheques:-
Cheque No. Date Amount Drawn on
854720 20.06.2017 Rs.50,000/- State Bank of Patiala,
Model Town branch,
Distt. Karnal, Haryana
854719 29.06.2017 Rs.50,000/- - do -
5. Defendant also sought further time to make the balance payment. However, the aforementioned cheques upon presentation were got dishonoured on 27.07.2017 with the reasons 'Payment stopped by Drawer".
6. It is further submitted that on request of Defendant, Plaintiff raised invoice and supplied goods of Rs.7,14,300/- in the name of M/s Axis Medi Solutions (Roorkee, Uttrakhand) which is sister concern of the Defendant's firm on the assurance that the same M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 5 ::
would be paid by his firm, which fact also stand affirmed vide payment authority letter dated 18.08.2017 issued by M/s Axis Medi Solutions. It is submitted that as on 10.08.2017, the Defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.42,89,369.24 to the Plaintiff firm.
7. Plaintiff thereafter tried to contact the Defendant telephonically however, Defendant avoided to take any calls from the Plaintiff and failed to pay the due amount. Thereafter, the Plaintiff sent legal notices dated 25.08.2017 to the Defendant at its office address by speed post. However, the same was returned with the report dated 06.09.2017 'REFUSED' and the notice sent to the office address of the Defendant was returned with report dated 30.08.2017 "THE ADDRESSEE IS NOT AVAILABLE INSPITE OF SEVERAL ATTEMPTS OF SERVICE BEING MADE'.
8. It is further submitted that since the Defendant neither paid the cheque amounts or gave any reply to the legal notice, Plaintiff filed a complaint under Section 138 NI Act before the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi being CC No.6863/2017.
9. It is submitted that despite repeated requests and reminders both oral as well as in writing, the Defendant failed to clear the dues of the Plaintiff. Hence, the present suit.
M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 6 ::
10. Plaintiff further submitted that the cause of action firstly arose on 27.07.2017 when cheques issued by the Defendant got dishonoured and its return memo was received by the Plaintiff from the bank and it further arose on 25.08.2017 when the legal notice was sent to the Defendant and the cause of action is still continuing and existing as the due amount has still not been paid by the Defendant despite filing of complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.
11. Perusal of record reveals that during the course of trial, the Defendant filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC on 31.07.2023 seeking amendment in the written statement to the effect that the Defendant is in fact a partnership firm and not a proprietorship concern. The said application was allowed and the statement of counsel for the Defendant was also recorded to the effect that the Defendant shall not ask for cross- examination/examination of the witnesses examined so far nor shall the Defendant ask for re-opening of the matter in any manner on this ground.
M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 7 ::
Plea of the Defendant:-
12. In its written statement, the Defendant pleaded that the present suit is not maintainable as the Plaintiff failed to file 'Statement of Truth', which is a mandatory requirement under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
13. It is further submitted that this court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit as in the bills/invoices filed by the Plaintiff, there no condition/clause conferring exclusive jurisdiction in Delhi Courts. Further, the goods were allegedly supplied by the Plaintiff in Karnal and the Defendant is placed in Karnal.
14. It is also contended that the suit is liable to be rejected, it being partially barred by time. It is submitted that the instant case was instituted on 24.04.2019 and any claim which is for the invoices, beyond the preceding three years from the date of institution of the suit is barred by time.
15. Defendant further contended that the Defendant has no concern or association with M/s Axis Medi Solutions and that it had not given any letter or authority to the Plaintiff nor has confirmed its liability qua the alleged amount of Rs.7,14,300/-. Therefore, the M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 8 ::
claim of the plaintiff qua the third party is not maintainable as against the Defendant.
16. It is further contended by the Defendant that M/s Opal Health Care is a partnership firm and Mr. Pranesh Trikha is the Partner in the said firm. It is further submitted that most of the purchase orders filed by the Plaintiff are either false, fabricated or has been self generated by the Plaintiff to raise frivolous claim in the present suit and since the purchase orders are in itself mostly false and fabricated or self generated, therefore, the alleged place of delivery as averred by the Plaintiff in its plaint itself is false.
17. With respect to cheques No.854720 and 854719, the Defendant contended that the said cheques were given as security long time back and the Plaintiff has misused the cheques to raise false claims against the Defendant. It is further submitted that the complaint case under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act was falsely lodged by the Plaintiff after misusing the security cheques.
18. As regards legal notice dated 25.08.2017, it is submitted by the Defendant that the allegation of knowledge of notice by the Defendant is based on conjecture and surmises and it is an imaginary plea taken by the Plaintiff to self serve its case. It is therefore submitted that the claim of the Plaintiff is baseless, M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 9 ::
misconceived and totally false and that the Defendant is not liable for any amount to the Plaintiff.
Replication:-
19. In the replication, the Plaintiff denied the contentions made in the written statement and reiterated the averments made in the plaint.
20. In its reply to the preliminary objections, it is submitted that on the date of institution of the present suit i.e. 24.04.2019, the Commercial Courts were not established and the case was filed before the court of learned Additional District Judge. However, as an abundant caution, the Plaintiff moved a separate application for taking on record the Statement of Truth and list of documents in terms of the Commercial Courts Act.
21. It is further submitted every invoice mentions that the same are subject to Delhi jurisdiction for litigation with respect to the business transaction. It is also submitted that transactions between the Plaintiff and the Defendant were in a form of running account business and as is apparent from the ledger placed on record by the Plaintiff and the Defendant was making on account payments and in the course of this running account transactions the last payments made by the Defendant were in the form of cheques dated M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 10 ::
20.06.2017 and 29.06.2017 which were returned unpaid on presentation, hence the claim of the Plaintiff is well within limitation. It is further submitted that the dispute of delivery is vague as the Plaintiff has annexed the proof of deliveries along with the plaint.
Issues & Evidence:
22. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 18.10.2022:-
(i) Whether the court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain this suit? (OPD)
(ii) Whether the suit of the Plaintiff is partially barred by time as claimed by the Defendant it being on the basis of various invoices from the period from 13.04.2015 to 05.01.2017? (OPD)
(iii) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount of Rs.42,89,369.24 from the Defendant? (OPP)
(iv) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to any interest, if so, at what rate and for what period? (OPP)
(v) Relief.
Plaintiff's Evidence:-
23. In order to prove its case, the Plaintiff examined Mr. Paras Doshi, Partner of Plaintiff's firm as PW-1, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW-1/A and exhibited the following documents in support of his affidavit:-
M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 11 ::
(1) The authority letter, Form A and B issued by the Registrars of Firms in respect of the registration of the plaintiff firm: Ex.PW-1/1 to PW-1/3 (2) The purchase order dated 13.04.2015 is exhibited as PW-1/4 (3) Invoice dated 16.04.2015 is exhibited as PW-1/5 (4)Delivery Challan is exhibited as PW-1/6 (5)Form DVAT 32 is exhibited as PW-1/7 (6)Courier receipts are exhibited as PW-1/8 & PW-1/9.
(7) The purchase order dated 20.04.2015 is exhibited as PW-1/10.
(8) Invoice dated 20.04.2015 is exhibited as PW-1/11.
(9) Delivery Challan is exhibited as PW-1/12.
(10) Form DVAT 32 is exhibited as PW-1/13.
(11) Courier Receipts are exhibited as PW-1/14 & PW-
1/15.
(12) The purchase Order dated 27.04.2015 is exhibited as PW-1/16.
(13) Invoice dated 27.04.2015 is exhibited as PW-1/17. (14) Delivery Challan is exhibited as PW-1/18. (15) Courier receipts are exhibited as PW-1/19 & PW- 1/20.
(16) The Purchase Order dated 28.04.2015 is exhibited as PW-1/21.
M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 12 ::
(17) Invoice dated 30.04.2015 is exhibited as PW-1/22, delivery challan is exhibited as PW-1/23 and receipt of freight charges is exhibited as PW-1/24.
(18) The Invoice dated 07.05.2015 is exhibited as PW-1/25, delivery challan is exhibited as PW-1/26, receipt of freight charges is exhibited as PW-1/27.
(19) Invoice dated 11.05.2015 is exhibited as PW-1/28, delivery challan is exhibited as PW-1/29, receipt of freight charges is exhibited as PW-1/30.
(20)The purchase order given by the defendant on telephone on 11.06.2015 and on the basis of that and on instruction of representative of defendant, the purchase order was reduced in writing by the partner of plaintiff which is exhibited as PW-1/31 (21) The invoice dated 11.06.2015 is exhibited as PW-1/32, delivery challan is exhibited as PW-1/33 and receipt of freight charges is exhibited as PW-1/34.
(22) That the purchase order given by the defendant on telephone on 12.06.2015 and on the basis of that and on instruction of representative of defendant, the purchase order was reduced in writing by the partner of plaintiff which is exhibited as PW-1/35 (23) The invoice dated 12.06.2015 is exhibited as PW-1/36, delivery challan is exhibited as PW-1/37 and courier receipt is exhibited as PW-1/38.
(24) That the purchase order given by the defendant on telephone on 07.07.2015 and on the basis of that and on instruction of representative of defendant, the purchase order was reduced in writing by the partner of plaintiff which is exhibited as PW-1/39 (25) The Invoice dated 07.07.2015 is exhibited as PW-1/40, delivery challan is exhibited as PW-1/41 and courier receipt is exhibited as PW-1/42.
M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 13 ::
(26) The purchase order given by the defendant on telephone on 07.07.2015 and on the basis of that and on instruction of representative of defendant, the purchase order was reduced in writing by the partner of plaintiff which is exhibited as PW-1/43 (27) The invoice no. 14390 dated 07.07.2015 is exhibited as PW-1/44, delivery challan is exhibited as PW-1/45 and courier receipt is exhibited as PW-1/46.
(28) The purchase order sent on email by the defendant on 22.07.2015 which is exhibited as PW-1/47 (29) The invoice dated 24.07.2015 is exhibited as PW-1/48, delivery challan is exhibited as PW-1/49 and courier receipt is exhibited as PW-1/50.
(30) The invoice no. 14545 dated 29.07.2015 is exhibited as PW-1/51, delivery challan is exhibited as PW-1/52 and courier receipt is exhibited as PW-1/53.
(31) The purchase order sent on email by the defendant on 11.08.2015 which is exhibited as PW-1/54 (32) The invoice no. 14652 dated 13.08.2015 is exhibited as PW-1/55, delivery challan is exhibited as PW-1/56 and courier receipt is exhibited as PW-1/57 (33) The purchase order sent on email by the defendant on 21.08.2015 which is exhibited as PW-1/58 (34) The invoice no. 14732 dated 26.08.2015 is exhibited as PW-1/59 and delivery challan is exhibited as PW-1/60. (35) The invoice no. 14734 dated 26.08.2015 is exhibited as PW-1/61 and delivery challan is exhibited as PW-1/62. (36) The purchase order sent on email by the defendant on 12.09.2015 which is exhibited as PW-1/63 M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 14 ::
(37) The invoice no. 14871 dated 14.09.2015 is exhibited as PW-1/64, delivery challan is exhibited as PW-1/65 and courier receipt is exhibited as PW-1/66.
(38) The purchase order given by the defendant on telephone on 17.09.2015 and on the basis of that and on instruction of representative of defendant, the purchase order was reduced in writing by the partner of plaintiff which is exhibited as PW-1/67 (39) The invoice no. 14903 dated 17.09.2015 is exhibited as PW-1/68, delivery challan is exhibited as PW-1/69 and receipt of freight charge is exhibited as PW-1/70.
(40) The purchase order given by the defendant on telephone on 17.09.2015 and on the basis of that and on instruction of representative of defendant, the purchase order was reduced in writing by the partner of plaintiff which is exhibited as PW-1/71.
(41) The invoice no. 14912 dated 17.09.2015 is exhibited as PW-1/72, delivery challan is exhibited as PW-1/73 and courier receipt is exhibited as PW-1/74.
(42) The purchase order sent on email by the defendant on 23.09.2015 is exhibited as PW-1/75, the invoice no. 15013 dated 05.10.2015 is exhibited as PW-1/76 and delivery challan is exhibited as PW-1/77 and courier receipt is exhibited as PW-1/78.
(43) The purchase order sent on email by the defendant on 09.10.2015 which is exhibited as PW-1/79.
(44) The invoice no. 15084 dated 10.10.2015 is exhibited as PW-1/80 and delivery challan is exhibited as PW-1/81 and courier receipt is exhibited as PW-1/82.
(45) The purchase order sent on email by the defendant on 06.11.2015 which is exhibited as PW-1/83 M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 15 ::
(46) The invoice no. 15281 dated 06.11.2015 is exhibited as PW-1/84 and delivery challan is exhibited as PW-1/85 and receipt of freight charge is exhibited as PW-1/86.
(47) The invoice no. 15282 dated 06.11.2015 is exhibited as PW-1/87 and delivery challan is exhibited as PW-1/88.
(48)The purchase order given by the defendant on telephone on 16.11.2015 and on the basis of that and on instruction of representative of defendant, the purchase order was reduced in writing by the partner of plaintiff which is exhibited as PW-1/89.
(49) The invoice no. 15302 dated 16.11.2015 is exhibited as PW-1/90, delivery challan is exhibited as PW-1/91 and receipt of freight charge is exhibited as PW-1/92.
(50) The purchase order sent on email by the defendant on 17.11.2015 which is exhibited as PW-1/93.
(51) The invoice no. 15328 dated 20.11.2015 is exhibited as PW-1/94 and delivery challan is exhibited as PW-1/95 and courier receipt is exhibited as PW-1/96.
(52) The purchase order sent on email by the defendant on 25.11.2015 which is exhibited as PW-1/97.
(53) The invoice no. 15394 dated 27.11.2015 is exhibited as PW-1/98 and delivery challan is exhibited as PW-1/99 and courier receipt is exhibited as PW-1/100.
(54)The invoice no. 15433 dated 02.12.2015 is exhibited as PW-1/101 and delivery challan is exhibited as PW-1/102 and courier receipts are exhibited as PW-1/103 & PW- 1/104.
(55)The purchase order given by the defendant on telephone on 19.01.2016 and on the basis of that and on instruction of representative of defendant, the purchase order was reduced in writing by the partner of plaintiff which is exhibited as PW-1/105 M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 16 ::
(56) The invoice no. 15797 dated 19.01.2016 is exhibited as PW-1/106, delivery challan is exhibited as PW-1/107 and courier receipts are exhibited as PW-1/108 & PW-1/109.
(57) The purchase order given by the defendant on telephone on 02.02.2016 and on the basis of that and on instruction of representative of defendant, the purchase order was reduced in writing by the partner of plaintiff which is exhibited as PW-1/110 (58) The invoice no. 15899 dated 02.02.2016 is exhibited as PW-1/111, delivery challan is exhibited as PW-1/112 and courier receipts are exhibited as PW-1/113 & PW-1/114.
(59) The purchase order given by the defendant on telephone on 05.02.2016 and on the basis of that and on instruction of representative of defendant, the purchase order was reduced in writing by the partner of plaintiff which is exhibited as PW-1/115 (60) The invoice no. 15923 dated 05.02.2016 is exhibited as PW-1/116, delivery challan is exhibited as PW-1/117 and courier receipts are exhibited as PW-1/118 & PW-1/119.
(61) The purchase order sent on email by the defendant on 18.02.2016 is exhibited as PW-1/120 (62) The invoice no. 16073 dated 20.02.2016 is exhibited as PW-1/121 and delivery challan is exhibited as PW-1/122 and receipt of freight charge is exhibited as PW-1/123.
(63) The invoice no. 16074 dated 20.02.2016 is exhibited as PW-1/124 and delivery challan is exhibited as PW-1/125 and courier receipt is exhibited as PW-1/126. (64) The purchase order given by the defendant on telephone on 09.03.2016 and on the basis of that and on instruction of representative of defendant, the purchase order was reduced in writing by the partner of plaintiff which is exhibited as PW-1/127.
M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 17 ::
(65) The invoice no. 16187 dated 09.03.2016 is exhibited as PW-1/128, delivery challan is exhibited as PW-1/129 and courier receipts are exhibited as PW-1/130 & PW-1/131.
(66)The invoice no. 16324 dated 25.03.2016 is exhibited as PW-1/132, delivery challan is exhibited as PW-1/133 and courier receipts are exhibited as PW-1/134 & PW-1/135.
(67) The purchase order given by the defendant on telephone on 10.05.2016 and on the basis of that and on instruction of representative of defendant, the purchase order was reduced in writing by the partner of plaintiff which is exhibited as PW-1/136.
(68) The invoice no. 16696 dated 10.05.2016 is exhibited as PW-1/137 and delivery challan is exhibited as PW-1/138.
(69) The purchase order given by the defendant on telephone on 13.06.2016 and on the basis of that and on instruction of representative of defendant, the purchase order was reduced in writing by the partner of plaintiff which is exhibited as PW-1/139.
(70) The invoice no. 16966 dated 13.06.2016 is exhibited as PW-1/140 and delivery challan is exhibited as PW-1/141.
(71) The purchase order sent on email by the defendant on 02.07.2016 is exhibited as PW-1/142.
(72) the invoice no. 17147 dated 05.07.2016 is exhibited as PW-1/143 and delivery challan is exhibited as PW-1/144 and courier receipts are exhibited as PW-1/145 & PW- 1/146.
(73) The purchase order sent on email by the defendant on 06.07.2016 is exhibited as PW-1/147.
(74) The invoice no. 17259 dated 19.07.2016 is exhibited as PW-1/148 and delivery challan is exhibited as PW-1/149 M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 18 ::
and courier receipts are exhibited as PW-1/150 & PW- 1/151.
(75)The purchase order given by the defendant on telephone on 30.07.2016 and on the basis of that and on instruction of representative of defendant, the purchase order was reduced in writing by the partner of plaintiff which is exhibited as PW-1/152.
(76) The invoice no. 17366 dated 30.07.2016 is exhibited as PW-1/153 and delivery challan is exhibited as PW-1/154 and receipt of freight charge is exhibited as PW-1/155.
(77) The purchase order given by the defendant on telephone on 30.07.2016 and on the basis of that and on instruction of representative of defendant, the purchase order was reduced in writing by the partner of plaintiff which is exhibited as PW-1/156.
(78) The invoice no. 17367 dated 30.07.2016 is exhibited as PW-1/157 and delivery challan is exhibited as PW-1/158 and courier receipts are exhibited as PW-1/159 & PW-
1/160.
(79) The invoice no. 17511 dated 19.08.2016 is exhibited as PW-1/161 and delivery challan is exhibited as PW-1/162 and courier receipts are exhibited as PW-1/163 & PW- 1/164.
(80) The purchase order given by the defendant on telephone on 19.09.2016 and on the basis of that and on instruction of representative of defendant, the purchase order was reduced in writing by the partner of plaintiff which is exhibited as PW-1/165.
(81) The invoice no. 17778 dated 19.09.2016 is exhibited as PW-1/166 and delivery challan is exhibited as PW-1/167 and courier receipts are exhibited as PW-1/168 & PW- 1/169.
M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 19 ::
(82) The purchase order sent on email by the defendant on 01.12.2016 is exhibited as PW-1/170 (83) The invoice no. 18385 dated 02.12.2016 is exhibited as PW-1/171 and delivery challan is exhibited as PW-1/172 and courier receipts are exhibited as PW-1/173 & PW-
1/174.
(84) The purchase order given by the defendant on telephone on 07.12.2016 and on the basis of that and on instruction of representative of defendant, the purchase order was reduced in writing by the partner of plaintiff which is exhibited as PW-1/175.
(85) The invoice no. 18423 dated 07.12.2016 is exhibited as PW-1/176 and delivery challan is exhibited as PW-1/177 and courier receipts are exhibited as PW-1/178 & PW- 1/179.
(86) The invoice no. 18471 dated 15.12.2016 is exhibited as PW-1/180 and delivery challan is exhibited as PW-1/181 and courier receipts are exhibited as PW-1/182 & PW- 1/183.
(87) The purchase order given by the defendant on telephone on 27.12.2016 and on the basis of that and on instruction of representative of defendant, the purchase order was reduced in writing by the partner of plaintiff which is exhibited as PW-1/184.
(88) The invoice no. 18588 dated 27.12.2016 is exhibited as PW-1/185 and delivery challan is exhibited as PW-1/186 and courier receipts are exhibited as PW-1/187 & PW- 1/188.
(89) The purchase order given by the defendant on telephone on 06.01.2017 and on the basis of that and on instruction of representative of defendant, the purchase order was reduced in writing by the partner of plaintiff which is exhibited as PW-1/189.
M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 20 ::
(90) The invoice no. 18635 dated 05.01.2017 is exhibited as PW-1/190 and delivery challan is exhibited as PW-1/191 and courier receipts are exhibited as PW-1/192 & PW-1/193.
(91) The attested copy of the ledger account of the defendant's firm as maintained by the plaintiff firm is exhibited as PW-1/194 and payment authority letter dated 18.08.17 is exhibited as PW-
1/195.
(92) The certified copy of cheques and Return Memo issued by the bank of the plaintiff is exhibited as PW-1/196 to PW-1/199. (93) The certified copy of legal notice dated 25.08.17, postal receipts, the track reports and the returned envelopes are exhibited as PW-1/200 to PW-1/206.
(94) The certified copy of the complaint petition is exhibited as PW-1/207.
(95) The certificate of Non-Starter dated 06.04.19 are exhibited as PW-1/208.
(96) The certificate U/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act is exhibited as PW-1/209.
Defendant's Evidence:-
24. The Defendant examined its Partner Mr. Pranesh Trikha who stepped into the witness box and deposed as DW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW-1/A wherein he more or less reiterated the contents of its written statement.
Arguments, Analysis & Findings:-
25. Before returning findings on the issues framed in the case, I deem it appropriate to deal with the pivotal aspect vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the Plaintiff. It is submitted that M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 21 ::
the Defendant did not file the affidavit of admission/denial of Plaintiff's documents despite various opportunities as a consequence whereof, the written statement is to be taken off the record and the documents filed by the Plaintiff must be deemed to be admitted.
26. Learned counsel for Plaintiff relied upon a ruling of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled as Unilin Beheer B.V. vs. Balaji Action Buildwell, MANU/DE/1650/2019 and submitted that the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree as per Order VIII Rule 10 CPC.
27. Learned counsel for Plaintiff further submitted that in OK Play India Pvt. Ltd. vs. A.P. Distributors & Ors., MANU/DE/2849/2021, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi clearly laid down that the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 are applicable to District Courts and that the District Courts did not function in vacuum.
28. Further, that in view of the above mentioned decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Unilin Beheer B.V. vs. Balaji Action Buildwell (Supra) and OK Play India Pvt. Ltd. vs. A.P. Distributors & Ors. (Supra), it is apparent that the written statement, having been filed without the affidavit of admission/denial in the plaint, not only shall the written statement M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 22 ::
be not taken on record but the documents filed by the Plaintiff are also deemed to be admitted as a result whereof, the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC.
29. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Defendant submitted that the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in the case of OK Play India Pvt. Ltd. vs. A.P. Distributors & Ors. (Supra) has been set aside and quashed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s A.P. Distributors & Anr. vs. M/s OK Play India Pvt.
Ltd in SLP (C) Nos.9733-9734/2022) decided on 12.09.2022. It is further submitted that the case of Unilin Beheer B.V. vs. Balaji Action Buildwell (Supra) has no application to the facts of the present case as the said case dealt with a matter pending before the Original Side of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and since the Original Side Rules are not applicable to the Commercial Courts at District level, the said judgment has no application to the facts of the present case.
30. Learned counsel for the Defendant relied upon the case of Sudhakar Singh & Anr. vs. Webkul Software Pvt. Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine Del 436 and submitted that in the said case the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has clearly held as under:-
"Moreover, under Order VIII CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 filing of the M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 23 ::
affidavit of admission/denial as applicable to Commercial Courts, is not compulsory. The filing of the affidavit of admission/denial has been made compulsory only in the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018. Thus, striking off the defence, despite the written statement being placed on record, on the ground that the affidavit of admission/denial was not filed is not tenable."
31. Having considered the submissions made and the relevant case law on the subject, I am in agreement with the submissions of learned counsel for the Defendant. In view of law on the subject as laid down in the case of Sudhakar Singh & Anr. vs. Webkul Software Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), this plea of the Plaintiff must be rejected.
32. It may be reiterated that in the present case, written statement was duly filed within the prescribed period of limitation, wherein the Defendant opposed the case of the Plaintiff, besides raising the plea that the documents relied upon by the Plaintiff do not entitle the Plaintiff to the relief as claimed.
33. In view of this also, the plea of the Plaintiff that he is entitled to a decree for the reason of non filing of affidavit of admission/denial by the Defendant, though despite several adjournments, cannot be accepted.
M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 24 ::
34. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the written submissions filed as well as relevant case law cited in support of their arguments.
35. The issue-wise findings on the basis of evidence on record and the facts and circumstances of the case are as under:-
Issue No. (i) Whether the court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain this suit? (OPD)
36. In its written statement, the Defendant claimed that this court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit inasmuch as the goods were supplied in Karnal, Haryana by the Plaintiff, where also the Defendant is placed.
37. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the Plaintiff that the invoices in question contain an exclusive jurisdiction clause stating that "All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Court jurisdiction only" and considering the said ouster clause, the exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the disputes arising between the parties from the said invoices is with the courts at Delhi, thereby conferring the requisite jurisdiction upon this court.
38. However, a perusal of the invoices filed by the Plaintiff would show that there is no exclusive jurisdiction clause, although it has been mentioned therein that "All transactions and bills are M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 25 ::
subject to Delhi Jurisdiction." The submissions of learned counsel for Plaintiff to this extent thus appear to be contrary to the contents of the documents in question i.e. the invoices.
39. Be that as it may. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff further submitted that part of cause of action also arose within the jurisdiction of this court as the goods were supplied by the Plaintiff from its office at Paharganj, Delhi where also part payments were received from the Defendant. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff relied upon the case of Auto Movers vs. Luminous Technologies Pvt. Ltd., MANU/DE/2032/2021 in support of his arguments and submitted that this court has the territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit.
40. Having considered the submissions and on going through the record, it is apparent that the invoices were issued by the Plaintiff from its office at Paharganj, from where the goods were stated to have been supplied to the Defendant. The statement of account Ex.PW-1/194 also reveals that certain payments were made by the Defendant to the Plaintiff which were also received by the Plaintiff at its office which falls within the jurisdiction of this court.
41. Even otherwise in the course of arguments, learned counsel M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 26 ::
for Defendant submitted that the Defendant is not pressing its objection with regard to territorial jurisdiction of this court.
42. In these circumstances, Issue No.(i) is decided in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant.
Issue No. (ii) Whether the suit of the Plaintiff is partially barred by time as claimed by the Defendant it being on the basis of various invoices from the period from 13.04.2015 to 05.01.2017? (OPD) and Issue No. (iii) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount of Rs.42,89,369.24 from the Defendant? (OPP)
43. Learned counsel for Defendant submitted that the suit is barred by limitation.
44. The arguments advanced on the aspect of limitation were two fold. It was firstly contended that the suit was initially filed without complying with the provisions of Order VI Rule 15A(5) of CPC as amended by the Commercial Court Act, 2015, inasmuch as the Plaintiff did not file the 'Statement of Truth' along with the plaint.
45. It is however, a matter of record that subsequently, Plaintiff filed an application on 25.08.2021, seeking permission to comply with the said provisions of the Act. The application was allowed vide order dated 08.03.2022 and the Plaintiff was permitted to file M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 27 ::
the 'Statement of Truth' and the list of documents. Learned counsel for Defendant had also submitted that he has no objection if the said application is allowed.
46. Despite having consented as aforesaid, it is contended on behalf of Defendant during the course of final arguments, that the mere fact that the Defendant gave its assent for taking on record the 'Statement of Truth' and list of documents, the same would not amount to waiver of applicability of the Limitation Act on the suit of the Plaintiff.
47. Learned counsel for the Defendant submitted that as the plaint, on the date of filing of the suit was not properly instituted, the mere concession by the Defendant for taking on record of 'Statement of Truth' would not bring the suit of the Plaintiff within limitation as the plaint on the date of institution itself was non-est.
48. Learned counsel for Defendant relied upon the judgment titled as M/s A.V. Industries vs. M/s Neo Neon Electrical Pvt. Ltd., decided on 01.09.2023, Neutral Citation: 2023:DHC:6230:DB in support of his arguments.
49. As against this, learned counsel for Plaintiff submitted that the 'Statement of Truth' having been duly filed after 'no objection' by the Defendant, clearly rectified and cured the defect in the plaint M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 28 ::
and the Defendant cannot be permitted to now raise the plea that the said concession given during the proceedings dated 08.03.2022 would not still not bring the suit within limitation.
50. I have considered the aforesaid submissions of learned counsels for parties. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the present case, I am not inclined to agree with the arguments of learned counsel for Defendant in this regard.
51. It is a matter of record that the present suit was filed on 24.04.2019 in the court of Additional District Judge i.e. in a non- commercial court. Commercial Courts in Delhi came into being only w.e.f. 06.12.2019 and the matter was subsequently transferred to Commercial Court. The suit was thus instituted as an ordinary civil suit in a non-commercial court, although the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 had been passed by that time.
52. In order to rectify the defect of non filing of statement of truth, the Plaintiff moved an application, which as aforesaid, was allowed vide order dated 08.03.2022. Learned counsel for Defendant submitted that there is no objection if the statement of truth filed by the Plaintiff is permitted to be taken on record.
53. It is noteworthy that at the time of giving the said consent, the Defendant did not reserve its right to raise the issue at any later M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 29 ::
stage that the Plaint, not having been filed in conformity with the provisions of the Commercial Courts, Act, 2015, must be struck off.
54. Be that as it may. It is relevant to note that the provisions of Order VI, Rule 15A, Sub-Rule (5) CPC (as amended), are directory in nature. The use of the work 'may' in Sub Rule (5) of the said statutory provision, clearly indicates the directory nature of the said provision.
55. Moreover, by allowing the application of the Plaintiff and permitting it to file the 'Statement of Truth' as per the requirement of Order VI Rule 15A, Sub Rule (1) CPC, as amended, the curable defect in the plaint, was permitted to be rectified and the plaint cannot now be thrown out on this score. The submissions of learned counsel for Defendant, on this ground, thus merit rejection.
56. The second limb of submissions of learned counsel for Defendant on the aspect of limitation is that it is well settled law that every invoice is an independent contract. The present suit, having being instituted on 24.04.2019, any claim pertaining to invoices beyond the preceding three years from the date of institution of the suit, is barred by limitation.
57. In this regard, my attention was also drawn to cross- examination of PW-1 who deposed as under:-
M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 30 ::
"It is correct that every single purchase order is treated as a single work order."
58. It is further submitted that the plea of the Plaintiff that the suit is based on the ledger account Ex.PW-1/194, also does not come to the rescue of the Plaintiff or brings the suit within limitation. In this regard, learned counsel for the Defendant submitted that the said ledger account, which is an internal document of the Plaintiff, was required to be duly proved as per Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act which has not been done in the present case. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for Defendant relied on the cross-examination of PW-1 on this aspect. The relevant extract of cross-examination of PW-1 relied upon by the learned counsel for Defendant is reproduced as under for ready reference:-
59. Cross-examination of PW-1 dated 31.03.2023:-
"Q.No.7: Does the Ex.PW-1/194 bears any endorsement/signature/stamp of any authority or 3rd party?
Answer - It is Computer generated.
Q.No.8: The computer referred in answer to Q.7 is kept in your exclusive custody or the custody of your accountant or any other person?
Answer- The computer is in my office and authorized person can have access to it.
Q.No.9: Is your above referred computer system password protected?
M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 31 ::
Answer- No. Q.No.10: Is it correct that since the same is not password protected anybody from your office can access it?
Answer- Only the person who is authorized can access it.
Q.No.11: Do you provide any separate authorization to each person who has access to the computer system?
Answer- No. Vol. All accounts staff is authorized to access. Everyone's role is in the office is assigned.
Q.No.12 Refer to answer to Q.11. Is it correct that the ledger Ex.PW-1/194 is maintained in a computer, which is accessible to all the persons working in your accounts department?
Answer- Yes, it is correct.
Q.No.13: Can you specifiy the name of the official who has prepared this ledger account? Answer- I do not recollect Vol. There are various entries done by different people. A person in accounts department might not be working at a later stage.
Q.No.14: Refer to answer to Q.13, It means that the ledger account was not prepared by you? Answer- Yes, it is not prepared by me. It is the firm's account and the firm staff has prepared the same."
60. Cross examination of PW-1 dated 19.04.2023:-
Q.No.29: Do you remember how many computers are in your office as on date?
Answer- Eight.
Q.No.30: When they were got installed? Answer- I do not remember, all installed in different period.
M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 32 ::
Q.No.31: Is it correct that when an old computer system is replaced with new one, the data cannot be retrieved or protected with 100% accuracy? Answer- It depends on the technician who is retrieving the data. If the technician is competent, 100% data can be retrieved.
Q.No.32: Do you remember the numbers of computer systems replaced between the period 2014 to 2019? Answer- Yes, I have replaced, but do not remember the numbers.
Q.No.33: I put it to you the certificate Ex.PW-1/209 is not admissible as the computer was not under your exclusive control?
Answer- It is incorrect."
61. Cross examination of PW-1 dated 03.05.2023:-
"Q.No.39: Have you mentioned in your certificate Ex.PW-1/209, from which computer system (out of 8 systems) you had collected and prepared the hard copy of the documents?
Answer - After going through Ex.PW-1/209, I have not mentioned."
62. Based on the above cross-examination of PW-1, learned counsel for the Defendant argued that the Plaintiff has failed to prove its ledger account Ex.PW-1/194, as per law. It is submitted that neither the concerned person who prepared the ledger account was summoned as a witness, nor can the certificate of PW-1 under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872 i.e. Ex.PW-1/209, be relied upon to prove the said ledger account in view of his above cross- examination of PW-1.
M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 33 ::
63. Per contra, learned counsel for Plaintiff submitted that there is no force in the arguments of the Defendant that the suit is partly barred by limitation. Learned counsel for Plaintiff submitted that the Defendant used to place purchase orders upon the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff was supplying goods against the invoices for the same. The transactions between Plaintiff and Defendant were of a running account, for which the Plaintiff has maintained a ledger account of the Defendant firm. The said ledger shows that the last invoice raised by the Plaintiff against the supply of material is on 05.01.2017, which places the suit well within limitation.
64. Extending his arguments further, learned counsel for Plaintiff submitted that even otherwise the last payment received from the Defendant through NEFT was on 29.11.2016, as per the ledger account, which also shows that the suit is within limitation.
65. He further argued that in the months of June and July, 2017, Defendant had issued two cheques against its dues which were dishonoured and hence the suit of the Plaintiff cannot be said to be time barred.
66. In order to consider and decide the submissions made by learned counsels for parties with respect to the computer generated ledger statement Ex.PW-1/194 and the Certificate under Section M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 34 ::
65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW-1/209, it would be necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of Section 65 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Sub Rule 2 of Section 65 of the Act deals with the conditions in respect of the computer output and enumerates them as under:-
"(2) The conditions referred to in sub-section (1) in respect of a computer output shall be the following, namely:-
(a) the computer output containing the information was produced by the computer during the period over which he computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer;
(b) during the said period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities;
(c) throughout the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly or, if not, then in respect of any period in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of the period, was not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents; and
(d) the information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities."
67. Further Sub Clause (3) of Section 65B reads as under:-
M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 35 ::
(3) Where over any period, the function of storing or processing information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period as mentioned in clause(a) of sub-section(2) was regularly performed by computers, whether -
(a) by a combination of computers operating over that period; or
(b) by different computers operating in succession over that period; or
(c) by different combinations of computers operating in succession over that period; or
(d) in any other manner involving the successive operation over that period, in whatever order, of one or more computers and one or more combinations of computers, all the computers used for that purpose during that period shall be treated for the purposes of this section as constituting a single computer; and references in this section to a computer shall be construed accordingly."
68. In the present case, the ledger statement Ex.PW-1/194 and the Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act (Ex.PW- 1/209) have been challenged firstly, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not examine the person who had prepared the ledger account. Secondly, it is contended that the said certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act (Ex.PW-1/209) cannot be relied upon as PW-1 had denied the accuracy of the data and thirdly, on the ground that the computer system was not in exclusive control of PW-1 as is M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 36 ::
borne out from his cross-examination of PW-1 reproduced hereinabove.
69. In this regard, it may be relevant to note that the provision of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not require that the person who prepared the ledger account must necessarily be summoned as a witness to prove it. In this context, Sub section (4) of Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is reproduced hereunder:-
"(4) In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things, that is to say -
(a) identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced;
(b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a computer;
(c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) relate, and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes of this sub-
section it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it."
M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 37 ::
70. The Plaintiff's witness namely PW-1 is the partner of the Plaintiff's firm. In his certificate Ex.PW-1/209, he has stated that by virtue of being a partner of M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals, he is using the computer terminals in his company office which were functioning normally at all times. He further stated that he was personally involved in the transactions and that the computer terminals were being used to maintain accounts by him in his office or by the computer operator.
71. Thus, the mere fact that the computer system in the office of the Plaintiff company was not password protected and the officials of the accounts department of the Plaintiff company had access to the same, does not per se imply that the entries in the ledger account are false or fabricated, particularly in view of the fact the Defendant has not produced any counter ledger statement to point out that the ledger maintained by the Plaintiff was either manipulated or had false entries. The partner of the Plaintiff company i.e. PW-1 clearly deposed that the firm's account has been maintained by the firm's staff working under him.
72. Here a reference may also be made to the cross-examination of DW-1 recorded on 11.08.2023, wherein DW-1 while admitting M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 38 ::
that the Defendant Company maintains ledger with respect to the business with the Plaintiff as also the balance sheets, failed to produce the said record. It is also noteworthy that the witness submitted that he can produce the said record i.e. the balance sheet of the Defendant firm for the year 2015 to 2018 if the same is available, despite which the same were not brought before the court.
73. In these circumstances, I find that there is no ground to throw out the entire electronic record with regard to the ledger statement of the Defendant duly maintained in the Plaintiff company by its accounts department with the personal involvement of the partner of the Plaintiff i.e. PW-1.
74. In this context, the judgment in case titled as Jay Ambe Industries Proprietor Shri Dinesh Kumar Bajranglal Somani vs. Garnet Specialty Paper Ltd., RFA No.5228 of 2019, Gujarat High Court, decided on 07.01.2022, relied upon by learned counsel for Plaintiff is also relevant. In the said case, Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat observed as under:-
"28) To hold that a particular document is not admissible for proof of its contents unless the writer is called, is to denude the documentary evidence of all its value and is clearly contrary to certain express statutory provisions to be found in the Evidence Act, more particularly, Section 59 of the Evidence Act. In our opinion, M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 39 ::
the documentary evidence becomes meaningless if to prove it in every case by way of oral evidence of its contents. If that is the position, it would mean that, in the ultimate, the analysis of the evidence must be oral and that the oral evidence would virtually be the only kind of evidence recognized by law,however, that is not the position under the Evidence Act. The definition of the term 'evidence' in Section 3 of the Evidence Act lays down that evidence means and includes statements made by the witnesses, which are called oral evidence, and documents produced before the court, which are called documentary evidence. A bare perusal of Section 59 of the Evidence Act states that all facts, except the 'contents' of documents, may be proved by oral evidence. Needless to say, that once the documents is proved in the manner provided under the provisions of the Evidence Act, the contents of that documents are also proved. It is for that reason that the Evidence Act advisedly lays down that the contents of a document can be proved by proving the document in the usual manner, a proposition that emerges unequivocally from a combined reading of Sections 59, 61 and 62 of that Act.
Thus, according to us, the trial court should have believed the documents of invoices, such as invoices of the delivery challan and ledger account, in absence of any dispute or rebuttal evidence submitted by the respondent-original defendant. Once the document has been exhibited, the initial burden of proof could be said to have been discharged by the original plaintiff. The original defendant was expected to deny the same with cogent rebuttal evidence, but having failed in submitting the rebuttal evidence, the trial court could not have ignored the exhibited evidence/undisputed evidence merely because there was no oral evidence in M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 40 ::
the form of examination of any evidence by the witness in support of the documentary evidence."
75. That being so, the question of limitation must necessarily be answered based on the relevant entries in the ledger statement Ex.PW-1/194. The said entries as pointed out by learned counsel for the Plaintiff clearly reflects payments made by the Defendant even as on 29.11.2016, considering which the suit having been filed electronically on 24.04.2019 is well within limitation.
76. Besides this, it is the undisputed case of the parties that the Defendant had issued two cheques for Rs.50,000/- which were dishonoured upon presentation on 27.07.2017 with the reasons 'Payment stopped by Drawer."
77. It is further submitted that the suit of the Plaintiff is even otherwise within limitation inasmuch as fresh cause of action arose on 27.07.2017 when the cheques issued by the Defendant were dishonoured. Hence, the suit is within limitation.
78. Whereas, it is the plea of the Defendant that the said cheques were issued by way of security, it is the case of the Plaintiff that the said cheques were issued towards part payment of the due amount.
M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 41 ::
79. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff drew my attention to the cross-examination of DW-1 dated 11.08.2023, wherein DW-1 stated that no letter was written to the Plaintiff by the Defendant informing that the said cheques were issued as security. It is submitted that there is no evidence on record whatsoever to establish this contention of the Defendant that the cheques bearing No.854720 and 854719 dated 20.06.2017 and 29.06.2017 respectively were given by the Defendant as security and not towards part payment. Hence this plea raised by the Defendant, not being substantiated by any evidence, cannot be accepted.
80. As regards Issue no. (iii), the Plaintiff, as aforesaid, has claimed a sum of Rs.42,89,369.24 from the Defendant. It is the case of the Plaintiff that on the basis of purchase orders received from the Defendant, the goods in question were supplied against various invoices. Further, as per ledger maintained by the Plaintiff firm of the Defendant, a sum of Rs.35,75,069.24 was due and payable to the Plaintiff as on 01.04.2017. It is further the case of the Plaintiff that pursuant to the aforesaid due amount, the Defendant with the assurance to make the balance payment issued the cheques dated 20.06.2017 and 29.06.2017 for Rs.50,000/- each which were subsequently dishonoured upon presentation. M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 42 ::
81. Further, it is contended by the Plaintiff that on the request of the Defendant, Plaintiff had raised invoices and supplied goods worth Rs.7,14,300/- on 10.08.2017 in the name of M/s Axis Medi Solutions, Roorkee, Uttrakhand which is the sister concern of Defendant's firm on the assurance that the same would be paid by his firm and the said fact stands affirmed by the authority letter dated 18.08.2017 issued by M/s Axis Medi Solutions. Hence, as per the Plaintiff, the Defendant was liable to pay Rs.42,89,369.24 as on 10.08.2017.
82. In the course of arguments however, it was submitted that as against the amount of two cheques, which were dishonoured, Plaintiff instituted proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, where the Defendant appeared and admitted his guilt and paid the cheque amount of Rs.50,000/- each, i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- to the Plaintiff (Complainant in case under Section 38 Negotiable Act) during the pendency of this suit on 16.02.2020.
83. In so far as the Plaintiff's claim for Rs.7,14,300/-, as aforesaid is concerned, it was submitted that the same was withdrawn by the Plaintiff during the course of cross-examination of PW-1 recorded on 31.03.2023. On 31.03.2023, PW-1/Plaintiff in the course of his cross-examination deposed as follows:-
M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 43 ::
"Q.1 Have you filed anything on record to prove that you have supplied any goods in the name of M/s Axis Medi Solutions?
Ans. The contents of paragraph no.6 of the plaint and paragraph 51 of the affidavit PW-1/A are wrong. We have not given any material to M/s Axis Medi Solutions so no documents are filed on record. (Vol. M/s Axis Medi Solutions is the friendly concern of the Plaintiff. We have supplied goods to the Defendant in the name of M/s Axis Medi Solutions where the purchase order was issued by the Defendant in the name of M/s Axis Medi Solutions where the purchase order was issued by the Defendant in the name of M/s Axis Medi Solutions and we acted as a guarantor.)"
84. Hence, it was submitted by learned counsel for the Plaintiff that in view of amount received from the Defendant during the pendency of the suit and the withdrawal of its claim to the extent of Rs.7,14,300/-, the Plaintiff restricts its claim only to the sum of Rs.34,75,069/-, in addition to interest and costs.
85. In view of the aforesaid, the evidence on record must now be analyzed to assess as to whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.34,75,069/-, from the Defendant.
86. Learned counsel for the Defendant submitted that PW-1 admitted in his cross-examination dated 31.03.2023 that every single purchase order is treated as a single work order and argued that the aforesaid invoices which are of three years preceding the M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 44 ::
date of filing of the suit, cannot be considered and the suit of the Plaintiff is barred by limitation to the said extent.
87. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the Defendant that the Defendant has disputed the delivery of invoices, delivery challans, D VAT 32 Form and also delivery of goods. Learned counsel for Defendant argued that neither the invoices nor goods were ever delivered to the Defendant and the case of the Plaintiff merits dismissal.
88. During his submissions, my attention was drawn by learned counsel for Defendant, to the cross-examination of PW-1, who upon being confronted with the courier receipts filed with the plaint, admitted that there was no proof of endorsement of receiving of the invoices or documents on the same. Further, in his cross- examination dated 13.02.2023, PW-1 deposed as under:-
"It is correct that the Ex.PW-1/4 does not show that it is print out of the e-mail and no e- mail ID of the sender or receiver is visible. Similar is my response with respect to Ex.PW- 1/10, Ex.PW-1/16, Ex.PW-1/21 and Ex.PW- 1/83.
It is wrong to suggest that the said purchase orders are self generated to create false claim. (Vol. Each and every material is used for the formulation of pharmaceuticals products i.e. eye drops in this case and Batch Manufacturing Record i.e. BMR is maintained M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 45 ::
which shows that the product has been used). It is not necessary that for maintaining the BMR, Defendant is bound to purchase from Plaintiff....
I have seen invoice Ex.PW-1/5. It is correct that it does not bear any endorsement of receipt of goods by the Defendant. (Vol. I have annexed the courier slip. Ex.PW-1/8 and Ex.PW-1/9, through which the said material was sent.) ....The courier receipts Ex.PW-1/8 and Ex.PW-1/9 do not bear any endorsement of receipt by the Defendant. (Vol. This is the copy which is handed over by the courier company to the Plaintiff.).
It is correct that as I have not filed or demanded proof of delivery from courier company.
89. Further on 19.04.2023, PW-1 deposed as under:-
"It is correct that I was communicating with the Defendant through e-mail regarding purchase orders. Vol. We always asked the customers as well as Defendant to send the purchase order through e-mail. After perusal of the record, it is correct that I have not filed any email through which I had sent Delivery Challan, Invoice or DVAT 32 Form to the Defendant. Vol. I might have sent but not filed on record.
90. On 03.05.2023, PW-1 further deposed as under:-
"Q. No.45. Kindly go through the record and all the courier vouchers filed by Plaintiff, can you specify the endorsement of receiving of the documents by courier by the Defendant?
M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 46 ::
Objected to by learned counsel for the Plaintiff that these are courier vouchers and it does not bear endorsement because only tracking report is available.
Objection left open to be decided by the court.
Answer - No receipt in respect to the courier vouchers regarding delivery of the documents to the Defendant has been filed as only tracking report is available.
Q.No.46: Have you filed tracking report of any courier receipt filed by you?
Answer - No. Q.No.47: I put to you that the bills, delivery challans, D VAT 32 Form were never served or issued to the Defendant, therefore, any clause contained therein is not binding upon the Defendant?
Answer - It is incorrect."
91. Learned counsel for Defendant further argued that even otherwise the purchase orders relied upon by the Plaintiff were not issued by the Defendant and were self generated as is apparent from the bare perusal of the purchase orders on record.
92. He relied upon on the following rulings in support of his submissions that the documents relied by the Plaintiff, do not establish its case:-
(i) Harish Mansukhani vs. Ashok Jain (RFA 04/2008), 2008:DHC:3069:DB;
M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 47 ::
(ii) S.P.P. Foods Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. Hannu Marketing (RFA No.778/2018), 2018 SCC OnLine Del 11288;
(iii) M/s Domebell Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s Thakur Enterprises & Ors. (OSA No.23/1999), 2007 SCC OnLine HP 10 &
(iv) Kusum Kund Durga vs. Kalra Papers (P) Ltd. (RFA No.16/2004), 2012 SCC OnLine Del 1000.
93. It is argued that it is settled law that without proof of actual delivery of goods, the suit for recovery of dues is liable to be dismissed.
94. Learned counsel for Defendant also argued that even otherwise, neither the invoices nor documents were supplied, nor any goods were delivered to the Plaintiff. It is submitted that as per the case of the Plaintiff, the goods were supplied for preparations of medicines by the Defendant and its further selling. Further, it is not the case of the Plaintiff that Defendant were issued any 'C' Form and apparently when no supplied were made, no question of 'C' Form arises. Also the filing of self-declaration by the Plaintiff under D VAT 32 could not prove the supply of goods.
95. Extending his arguments further, learned counsel for Defendant submitted that without admitting the delivery of goods and without prejudice, the demand of Batch Manufacturing Record M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 48 ::
(BMR) by the Plaintiff also establishes that goods were being used for manufacturing/preparations of medicines to be sold by the Defendant and therefore, 'C' Form is relevant for establishing the supply of goods, which was neither issued nor demanded by the Defendant as no goods were supplied.
96. Learned counsel for Defendant thus argued that the present suit is liable to be dismissed as the goods were never supplied to the Defendant much less to say about supply of any invoice or documents. It is submitted that it is settled law that the suit of the Plaintiff has to stand on its own legs and not on the weakness of the defence of the Defendant and the Plaintiff, as a matter of record, failed to prove the due delivery of goods or the invoices or any other documents, as per law and therefore, not entitled for any relief from this court.
97. As against this, learned counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that Defendant, as a blanket denial has denied everything in its written statement, though he has admitted the relationship between the Plaintiff and Defendant, wherein the goods were being supplied pursuant to purchase orders being issued by the Defendant.
98. On going through the written statement, it is apparent that the Defendant has denied that he ever gave any orders to the M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 49 ::
Plaintiff for supply of goods in question and has contended that the purchase orders filed by the Plaintiff are fabricated and self-
generated. It is denied that the Plaintiff ever received the alleged purchase orders from the Defendant either through e-mail or telephonically and it is submitted that there is no receipt or endorsement of due delivery on most of the invoices and the Plaintiff has failed to prove the delivery of goods to the Defendant.
99. In so far as the issuance of purchase orders are concerned it would be relevant to revert to the cross-examination of DW-1 dated 11.08.2023. The relevant extract of the cross-examination is reproduced as under:-
"Q. Can you state the mode of placing orders with the plaintiff firm?
A. The orders were placed telephonically."
100. Further in cross-examination dated 21.08.2023, DW-1 was questioned as under:-
"Q.3 I put it to you that you also used to place purchase orders with the plaintiff through emails. What you have to say?
A. No. Again said, we might have place purchase orders with the plaintiff firm on few occasions.
Q.4 Kindly see Annexures P/52 page 70, P/56 page 74, P/63 page 81, P/66 page 84, P/78 page 96, P/82 page 100, P/98 page 116, P/102 page 120, P/106 page 124, P/125 page 140, M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 50 ::
P/129 page 144, P/148 page 161, P/153 page 165, P/167 page 177, P/177 page 185, P/187 page 193, of the list of documents of the plaintiff placed on the judicial file. Is it correct that you had placed purchase orders with the plaintiff firm through emails referred hereinabove?
A. Yes. It is correct."
101. From the above, cross-examination and admissions of DW- 1, it stands proved that the purchase orders were placed by the Defendant with the Plaintiff telephonically and through e-mail, as contended by the Plaintiff.
102. DW-1 was thereafter further cross-examined by the Plaintiff as under:-
"Q.5 I put to you that on the above mentioned purchase orders placed by you with the plaintiff firm, the plaintiff firm had supplied the ordered goods as per the orders. What do you have to say?
A. It is incorrect. All the goods were not supplied as per the purchase orders referred hereinabove.
Q.6 Can you please tell as to goods pursuant to which of the purchase orders mentioned above were not supplied to you by the plaintiff? A. I will have to check my records as the purchase orders are of the year 2015-16 and I do not remember off hand as to which purchase orders referred herein above, I had received the goods.
Q.7 Have you written any communication to the plaintiff on the goods which were not M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 51 ::
supplied by the plaintiff pursuant to your placing purchase orders?
A. I did not send any written communication to the plaintiff firm in respect of goods which were not supplied against the orders placed. Vol. Many times there used to talk on phone."
103. The above cross-examination of DW-1 further establishes that the goods were received by the Defendant against the purchase orders admittedly placed by the Defendant with the Plaintiff firm through e-mails. The onus to prove as to whether goods were not supplied against the purchase orders thus shifted upon the Defendant in view of his deposition that all the goods were not supplied as per the said purchase orders.
104. It is apparent on going through his cross-examination that the Defendant failed to clarify as to which goods were not received by him. He also failed to place on record any evidence by way of written communication to the Plaintiff firm informing the Plaintiff that the entire goods were not supplied against the orders placed.
105. In view of the above evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the Plaintiff has been able to prove that the purchase orders were placed by the Defendant telephonically as well as through emails against which the material was duly supplied to the Defendant against the invoices raised by the Plaintiff firm. The M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 52 ::
contention of the Defendant that all the goods were not supplied in lieu of the purchase orders placed remains unsubstantiated for want of further evidence in this regard.
106. The Plaintiff, on the other hand, proved ledger account Ex.PW-1/194, as per which there was an outstanding balance of Rs.42,89,369.24 as on 10.08.2017. It was reiterated even at the cost of repetition, that during the proceedings of the case Plaintiff gave up its claim for Rs.7,14,300/- and claim of the Plaintiff is restricted to Rs.34,75,069/- only after deducting the payment of Rs.1,00,000/- received against the dishonoured cheques, in addition to interest and costs.
107. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff drew my attention to the cross-examination of DW-1 dated 21.08.2023, wherein DW-1 was questioned with regard to the running account with the Plaintiff firm. The relevant extract of his cross-examination dated 21.08.2023 is reproduced as under:-
"Q.10 I put to you that you were maintaining running account of your business with the plaintiff firm? What do you have to say? A. Sometimes, the payment were made as per the purchaser order and sometimes the payments were made in part.
M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 53 ::
Q.11 I put to you that it is correct that the business between your and plaintiff firm was being run on running account basis?
A. Yes.
Q.12 I put to you that whether you maintaining a ledger in respect of your business being run with the plaintiff firm. What do you have to say?
A. Yes.
Q.13 I put you that you have not placed the said ledger on judicial record. What do you have to say?
A. Yes."
108. From the above admission of DW-1, it stands proved that the business between the Defendant and Plaintiff was being done on running account basis.
109. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff relied upon a ruling of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a case titled as Fresh & Healthy Enterprises Ltd. vs. R.K. Brothers (RFA No.319/2017), MANU/DE/3074/2018, wherein it has been held as under:-
"...A suit plaint does not have to contain a statement of law that the ledger account was an open, mutual and current account under Article 1 of the Limitation Act because that is an inference or a finding of fact which has to be arrived at from the statement of account which is filed."
M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 54 ::
110. Relying on the said judgment, learned counsel for Plaintiff submitted besides the admissions by DW-1, it can also be inferred from the conduct of the parties and the ledger account Ex.PW-1/194 that the business between the parties was being run on running account basis.
111. It is submitted that admittedly no counter ledger has been filed by the Defendant to prove that the entries in Ex.PW-1/194 are false or incorrect. It is also not in dispute that part payments were made by the Defendant by way of bank transfers on various occasions to the Plaintiff which have not been explained by the Defendant as to if deliveries were not been done by the Plaintiff against what the said part payments were being made by the Defendant on more occasions than one.
112. It is submitted that even after the last part payment of Rs.79,150/- on 29.11.2016, Plaintiff further supplied goods through invoice dated 15.01.2017 to the Defendant.
113. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff relied on the case of Ashok Parshad vs. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd., 2013/DHC/4627 and argued that since the present case is not that of a mutual running account as contemplated in Article 1 of the Schedule appended Limitation Act, 1963, but are based on Running Account M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 55 ::
between the parties, the limitation would not end with the supply, but it would keep on being extended when the last payment is made.
114. In Ashok Parshad (Supra), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed as under:-
"18. Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963 specifically provides that once the payment is made towards the part of the total debt due, a fresh period of limitation starts on such payment. This extension of limitation arises from the factum of the payment towards the debt due and not how the creditor appropriates the same. It is under this provision that the period of limitation gets extended when the demand is made towards a debt and as seen above, the creditor is within its rights to appropriate the payments as towards the entire outstanding, unless there was an expressed agreement or intention of the debtor to adjust such payments towards specific debt."
115. It was argued that in the present case also, in the absence of any express agreement between the parties, it was upon the Plaintiff to adjust the payment received from the Defendant time to time and considering the payments made by the Defendant from time to time as reflected in the ledger account Ex.PW-1/194, the period of limitation was also extended from time to time, thus entitling the Plaintiff to recover the outstanding amount from the Defendant. M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 56 ::
116. For ready reference, Ex.PW-1/194 i.e. the ledger account of the Defendant maintained by the Plaintiff is reproduced as under:-
M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 57 ::
117. From the arguments advanced by the counsels for the parties and considering the settled law on the subject by virtue of The Hindustan Forest Company vs. Lal Chand & Ors., 1959 AIR 1349 and Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Bharath Skins Corporation vs. Taneja Skins Company Pvt. Ltd. in RAO(OS) 13/2002 decided on 21.12.2011, It is apparent that the present case is not one of a mutual open and running account and is out of purview of the Article 1 of the schedule appended to the Limitation Act.
118. Further, considering the law as laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Ashok Parshad (Supra) and various payments made by the Defendant on different dates towards M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 58 ::
the debt due, which the Plaintiff was well within its rights to appropriate towards the entire outstanding in the absence of any express agreement to the otherwise, I find myself in agreement with the submissions of learned counsel for the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the due amount of Rs.34,75,069/-
from the Defendant.
119. Issues No.(ii) and (iii) are decided accordingly. Issue No. (iv) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to any interest, if so, at what rate and for what period? (OPP)
120. Besides claiming the due amount, the Plaintiff has also claimed interest @ 18% from the Defendant w.e.f. 25.08.2017 i.e. the date of legal notice till filing of the suit, in addition to pendente lite and future interest till realization of the suit amount.
121. However, having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of transactions between the parties, I am of the view that interest of justice would be met if the Plaintiff is awarded simple interest @ 9% per annum on the decretal amount from the date of filing of the suit till realization of the decretal amount.
122. This issue is decided accordingly.
M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019 :: 59 ::
Relief:-
123. Considering the foregoing discussion and findings on the above issues the suit is decreed for a sum of Rs.34,75,069/-. Plaintiff is also awarded simple interest @ 9% per annum on the decretal amount from the date of filing of the suit till realization of decretal amount. Costs of the suit are also awarded in favour of Plaintiff. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open (Kaveri Baweja)
court on 20.12.2023 District Judge (Commercial Court)-07
Central District, THC, Delhi
'ns'
M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019
:: 60 ::
CS (Comm.) 558/2019
M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care 20.12.2023 Present : Mr. Rhythem Nagpal - proxy counsel for Plaintiff.
None for Defendant.
Vide separate judgment announced in open court, the suit of the Plaintiff is decreed for a sum of Rs.34,75,069/-. Plaintiff is also awarded simple interest @ 9% per annum on the decretal amount from the date of filing of the suit till realization of decretal amount. Costs of the suit are also awarded in favour of Plaintiff. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
(Kaveri Baweja) District Judge (Commercial Court)-07 Central District, THC, Delhi 20.12.2023 M/s Doshi Pharmaceuticals vs. M/s Opal Health Care CS (Comm.) 558/2019