Delhi District Court
M/S Flex Industries Ltd vs M/S Sukam Gravures Ltd on 5 November, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SHRI KULDEEP NARAYAN : ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-05 (West) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS No.460/11
Unique ID No. 02401C0089082007
M/s Flex Industries Ltd.
(Formally known as FCL Technologies & Product & Ltd.)
Having its registered office at:
110, First Flor, Bhanot Corner,
Pamposh Enclave, Greater Kailash-I,
New Delhi-110048 ....... Plaintiff
V.
M/s Sukam Gravures Ltd.
D-12, Kalindi Colony,
Front, Near Ashram Chow
Main Ring Road, New Delhi-65
Also at:
Kamal Theater Building,
Railway Road, Muzaffar Nagar-251001 ......Defendant
Date of Institution : 27-01-2007
Date of reserving Judgment : 13-10-2015
Date of pronouncement : 05-11-2015
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.3,51,137/- against the defendant. The relevant facts are that the plaintiff is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of manufacturing and dealing in all kinds of inks, adhesive polyester tape and based printed material. M/s FCL Technologies & Products Ltd, 110, First Floor, Bhanot Corner, Pamposh Enclave, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi-48 had been merged and amalgamated with the plaintiff company in terms of the order dated 06.10.2006 passed by the Hon'ble High Court and a certificate of registration orders of court confirming Amalgamation of Companies was issued on 07.01.2007.
CS NO. 460/11 Page 1/5As per the plaint, the defendant company is also a registered company having dealing with M/s FCL Technologies & Products Ltd., which had been merged and amalgamated with the plaintiff company. In accordance with the orders placed by the defendant company, the plaintiff company used to supply the ordered material from time-to-time. Though the defendant company used the material supplied by the plaintiff company but, it failed to pay the full value of the bills and, hence, the account of defendant company in respect of the dealings, which were duly maintained in the books of the plaintiff company, shows an outstanding amount of Rs.4,48,316/-. Against the part payment of the said outstanding amount, the defendant company issued three cheques, as detailed in para 8 of the plaint in favour of the plaintiff company, which on presentation were dishonoured due to insufficient fund. Consequently, the plaintiff company sent a legal notice dated 14.09.2006 to the plaintiff in response to which defendant company, in order to avoid any litigation, preferred to make the payment and made the part payment of Rs. 1,04,064/- through a demand draft on 07.11.2006. However, an amount of Rs.3,44,252/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum is stated to be still outstanding against the defendant company. Hence, the suit.
2. Summons of the suit were issued to the defendant company.
3. Defendant company contested the suit and filed its written statement taking the preliminary objection that no amount is outstanding and, hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. It is pleaded that although the defendant company utilized the material and manufactured the finished goods but, the finished goods so manufactured were rejected due to the delaminate and smell and that a debit note dated 25.08.2006 for Rs.4,98,000/- for the poor quality material had been sent to the plaintiff company, which was not taken into consideration. It is stated that the payment of Rs.1,04,064/- by demand draft was in lieu of cheques, which were returned on account of CS NO. 460/11 Page 2/5 settlement of the bad quality of the goods and even after that a refund of Rs.1,40,405.76 is due from the plaintiff company. Other pleas of the plaint were denied.
4. In the replication to the written statement of defendant, the plaintiff has controverted all the pleas taken by the defendant and reiterated its own pleas.
5. As per the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:
1. Whether the present suit filed on behalf of the plaintiff is without any cause of action? OPD
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount, as prayed for ?OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest? If yes, at what rate and what period? OPP
4. Relief.
6. During the course of the proceedings vide order dated 29.08.2012, PE was closed by the Ld. Predecessor as the plaintiff failed to lead any evidence despite several opportunities given from time-to-time and the matter was listed for defence evidence on 30.11.2012. On 03.10.2012, an application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 & 151 CPC for review/modification of the order dated 29.08.2012 was moved by the plaintiff. Vide order dated 15.04.2013, the Ld. Predecessor dismissed the review application moved by the plaintiff and the matter was again listed for defence evidence on 31.07.2013. On 31.07.2013, Shri Rajesh Kumar, counsel for the defendant made a statement thereby closing defence evidence and accordingly, defence evidence was closed and the case was adjourned for final arguments on 07.08.2013.
7. I heard the arguments advanced by Shri Rajeev Aggarwal, counsel for the plaintiff. However, counsel for the defendant did not turn up for CS NO. 460/11 Page 3/5 advancing the arguments.
8. Having heard the submissions and perused the entire material available on record, my issue-wise findings are as under:-
9. Issue no.1 "Whether the present suit filed on behalf of the plaintiff is without any cause of action? OPD"
10. The onus to prove this issue was placed on the defendant in view of the preliminary objection no.1 in the written statement. As per the plaint, a sum of Rs.4,48,316/- was outstanding towards the defendant and in discharge of its part liability, the defendant had issued three cheques for a sum of Rs.1,04,064/-,which were dishonoured on presentation and subsequently, the cheques amount was received by the plaintiff through demand draft dated 07.11.2006. It is also stated in the plaint that after receiving the aforesaid amount of dishonoured cheques, an amount of Rs.3,44,252/- was still due and outstanding against the defendant. To recover the same with interest, the plaintiff filed the suit.
11. In its written statement the defendant denied the averments of the plaint and stated that the defendant had sent a debit note dated 25.08.2006 for a sum of Rs.4,98,000/- for the poor quality material supplied, which was not taken into consideration by the plaintiff. The defendant also claimed to recover a sum of Rs.1,40,405.76 from the plaintiff. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant led any evidence in support of their respective contentions. A perusal of the pleadings of both the parties reveal that by no stretch of imagination, the suit can be said to be without any cause of action. It was incumbent on the defendant to lead positive evidence to show that the claim of the plaintiff was not justiciable and the suit was without any cause of action, which defendant failed to do. It is held that the suit is not without any cause of action. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the defendant.
CS NO. 460/11 Page 4/512. Issues no. 2 &3 "Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount, as prayed for ?OPP"
"Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest? If yes, at what rate and what period?OPP"
The onus to prove these issues was placed on the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not lead any evidence to prove the allegations levelled against the defendant. Though the plaintiff filed number of documents in support of the pleadings, the fact remains that none of the witness on behalf of the plaintiff entered into witness box to substantiate the allegations levelled in the plaint and to prove the documents as per law. In view of the pleadings on both sides, the allegations/counter allegations were required to be proved by leading of evidence and the same cannot be considered merely on the basis of the documents filed. A perusal of the written statement of the defendant also reveals that there are no admissions on the part of the defendant with regard to existence of liability to pay a sum of Rs.3,44,252/- to the plaintiff. In the absence of any evidence to corroborate the allegations levelled by the plaintiff, in my considered opinion, the plaintiff miserably failed to discharge the onus placed on it and accordingly both the issues are decided against the plaintiff.
13. Issue no.4 (Relief) In view of the findings on issues no. 2 & 3, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief. Hence, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with costs.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court (KULDEEP NARAYAN)
on 05.11.2015. Additional District Judge-05
West Distt.Court Room No.33
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
CS NO. 460/11 Page 5/5