Delhi District Court
Suit No. 63/03/97 vs M/S Detibh Engineers (India) Pvt. Ltd on 26 September, 2007
IN THE COURT OF SH. T.S. KASHYAP : ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE:DELHI.
SUIT NO. 63/03/97
1 M/s General Engineering Works,
(Prop. Hindusthan Development
Corporation Ltd.)
Kanchenjunga Building, 7th Floor,
18,Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi-110001.
2 M/s Hindusthan Devemlopment
Corporation Ltd.,
a Company incorporated under
the Companies Act, 1956 and
having its Regd. Office at
Mody Building, 27, Sir R. N.
Mukherjee road, Calcutta-700001. ...........Plaintiffs
Vs.
1 M/s Detibh Engineers (India) Pvt. Ltd.,
64,Mahavir Centre,
Sector-17, Vashi,
New Bombay-400 705.
and also at:
Opposite D Cabin,
Sabarmati,
Ahmedabad.
2 Mr. S.A. Desai,
Director,
Detibh Engineers (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Manish Apartment,
Tithal road,
Valsad.
3 Mr. Nalin Desai,
C/o Detibh Engineering (India) Pvt. Ltd.
3.B, Urmi Kunj Society,
Opp. Xaviers College,
Navrangpura,
Ahmedabad. ...........Defendants
DATE OF INSTITUTION: 18/09/2003
DATE OF ARGUMENTS: 17/09/2007
DATE OF DECISION: 26/09/2007
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 6,71,874.54/- ALONGWITH
PENDENTELITE AND FURTURE INTEREST
JUDGMENT
This suit for recovery has been filed on behalf of plaintiffs Contd...2/-
-2-through Sh. Gautam Singh Karnawat, officer and Constituted Attorney against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 6,71,874.54/- alongwith cost and interest @ 24 % per annum pendentelite till realisation.
2 Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff No. 2 is a Public Limited Company registered under the Companies Act having its registered office at Mody Building, 27, Sir R.N. Mukherjee Road, Calcutta-700001 and plaintiff No. 1 is a unit of plaintiff No. 2. The plaintiffs are engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of various types of steel wire and high tensile strand wire. The defendant No. 1 is a Pvt. Ltd. Company carrying on business of Consultants and Contractors of engineering projects and defendant No. 2 is director and defendant No. 3 is principal officer of the defendant No. 1. The defendants through defendant No. 2 and 3 had approached the plaintiff for supply of high high tensile strand (HTS) wire and in due course of its business accepted the proposal of the defendants and supplied the HTS wires from time to time. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the supply and delivery of the wires was to be made against the Sales Tax declaration form 'C' and payment of the bill issued against the consignment was to be made within 30 days from the receipt of the material and in case of delay beyond 30 days, the defendants were liable to pay interest on the delayed payments @ 24 % per annum. The defendants were also required to issue said Form 'C' against the materials delivered to the defendants failing which they were liable to pay the amount of Sales Tax and penalty if any imposed by the department on the plaintiff company. The plaintiff company had been maintaining a running account in respect of the transactions with the defendants. It is alleged that the defendants made a part payment of Rs. 3,01,953/- against bill No. 710 leaving a balance of Rs. 17,241.46/- also failed to issue the Sales Tax declaration Form 'C'. However, the defendants failed to pay the said amount and also failed to supply the Sales Tax Forms 'C' and a sum of Rs. 3.63.216.62/- against bill No. 1255 dated 24.2.1994 as per the details given in para 7 of the plaint. It has been alleged that the defendants failed to pay the dues despite repeated Contd...3/-
-3-reminders and also did not issue the requisite Sales Tax Form 'C' against those bills and therefore, they are liable to pay Sales Tax @ 4 % against the said bills alongwith interest @ 24 % per annum for which the plaintiff company has also issued notice dated 23.12.1994 and thereafter reminders dated 6.7.95, 2.1.96, 6.3.96 and finally legal notice dated 1.1.1997 was served on the defendants and since the defendants failed to clear the liability, the plaintiffs have claimed the amount as per the details given in para 13 of the plaint which is Rs. 6,71,874.54/-.
3 The defendants No. 1 and 2 contested the suit by filing a Written Statement taking preliminary objections that the suit as framed is not maintainable; that the suit is hit by principles of waiver, acquiescence and estoppel; that the plaintiff has no cause of action to institute this suit against the defendants; that the suit is barred by limitation and that this court lacks territorial jurisdiction. The averments in para 1 and 2 of the plaintiff have not been denied and averments in para 3 of the plaint have been stated to be partially correct clarifying that defendant No. 3 was not a principal officer of defendant company but was only a project manager and had nothing to do with the financial affairs of the company. It is claimed that the defendant company never approached the plaintiff for supply of High Tensile Strand (HTS) wire but on the contrary, the officer of the plaintiff company approached the defendants assuring about the quality of their goods. It has been claimed that the terms and conditions of the supply and purchase were things of letters not intended to be adhered to in strict terms, although, the papers were signed by the defendant's men. The supply of material by the plaintiff company to the defendants has not been denied but it is claimed that the material was of sub-standard quality which could not be used by the Railways because the tender of the defendants was accepted subject to conforming to I.S.I. The issue of two bills in question by the plaintiffs is not denied but it is claimed that the defendants have rejected the supplied goods being sub-standard and the plaintiff was called to take the goods back from the site failing which the defendants were under no obligation. Defendant No. 3 adopted the Written Statement of defendant No. 1 and 2.
Contd...4/-
-4-4 On behalf of plaintiff, replication to the Written Statement of defendant No. 1 and 2 was also filed controverting the pleas taken by defendant No. 1 and 2 and reiterating the pleas taken in the plaint and same replication was adopted for defendant No. 3 also.
5 On pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 9.2.2000 :-
1 Whether this court has jurisdiction to try this suit? OPD. 2 Whether the defendant is liable to pay the additional amount of sales tax @ 4% in case of failure to supply the required 'C' forms? OPP.
3 Whether the 'C' Forms were issued by the defendants for the
supplies made by the plaintiff? OPD.
4 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim suit amount? OPP.
5 Relief.
However, subsequently, my Ld. Predecessor while allowing the application under Order 14 Rule 5 R/W Section 151 CPC moved by defendant framed additional issue vide order dated 24.7.2006 and all the issues were renumbered as under :-
1 Whether this court has jurisdiction to try this suit? OPD. 2 Whether the defendant is liable to pay the additional amount of sales tax @ 4% in case of failure to supply the required 'C forms? OPP.
3 Whether the 'C' Forms were issued by the defendants for the
supplies made by the plaintiff? OPD.
4 Whether the defendants rejected the goods supplied by the
plaintiff and called upon the plaintiff to take back the goods from the site as alleged in para 9,10,11 and 12 of the WS. OPD.
5 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim suit amount? OPP.
6 Relief.
6 In support of his case, the plain tiff examined Sh. J.P. Goel as Contd...5/--5-
PW-1 who tendered his affidavit Ex. PW-1/A in his examination in chief corroborating the facts and allegations as contained in the plaint and proved on record the documents Ex. PW-1/2 to Ex. PW-1/9. He was also cross-examined and plaintiff's evidence was closed in affirmative. On behalf of defendant, DW-1 Sh. Nalin Desai was examined who tendered his affidavit Ex. DX corroborating the pleas as taken in the written statement and proved the documents Ex. DW-1/1 to Ex. DW-1/4 and Ex. DW-1/8A . He was also cross-examined and on behalf of plaintiff Sh. J.P. Goel was again examined in rebuttal wherein he tendered his rebuttal affidavit Ex. PX-1 and after his cross-examination, the plaintiff's evidence was closed.
7 I have heard the arguments and gone through the case file and considered the submissions and testimony in the light of relevant provisions of law and my findings on the issues are as under :-
ISSUE No. 18 The onus to prove this issue was on the defendants who have pleaded that this court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit as no part of cause of action ever arose in Delhi and the parties conferred jurisdiction on Thane Court. On behalf of defendants, it has been submitted by Ld. Counsel that DW-1 had proved the delivery challans dated 27.10.93 Ex. D-2 and dated 24.2.94 Ex. D-3 also Ex. DW-1/2 and Ex. DW-1/3 wherein the supplies were made at Sabarmati, Gujrat and DW-1 has also proved on record the purchase order dated 28.9.93 Ex. DW-1/1 which bears the note "Acceptance of this order constitutes an acceptance of the terms and conditions on face reverse hereof subject to Thane Jurisdiction and therefore, Delhi court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit. However, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff had submitted that these documents were shown to have been drawn only for the purpose of excise department and the terms and conditions particularly the Thane jurisdiction was not accepted by the plaintiff's in the delivery challans. Moreover, the parties cannot confer jurisdiction on a court which does not have any jurisdiction at all. In the Contd...6/-
-6-present case, no transaction took place nor any cause of action arose at Thane. Therefore, the parties could not have conferred jurisdiction on Thane Court. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention that only the Thane Court had jurisdiction. Otherwise also, the plaintiff had not signed on Ex. D-1(Ex. DW-1/1). Moreover, the defendants have admitted that they had made part payment with respect to previous transactions through demand draft to the plaintiff at Delhi address. DW-1 has admitted that enquiry was raised vide letter dated 20.9.93 and DW-1 has also admitted the letter dated 14.2.94. Ex. DW-1/8 was sent by defendants to the plaintiff and letter dated 20.9.93 Ex. DW-1/P-1 was also sent by them to the plaintiff. He also admitted that part payment of one of the bill was made to the plaintiff through demand draft at Delhi and the demand draft was payable at Delhi. He also admitted in the cross-examination that in Ex. PW-1/2 and Ex. PW-1/3, the defendant agreed to make the payment to the plaintiff in Delhi and also agreed to pay the interest, if not paid within 30 days. PW-1 Sh. J.P. Goel in the cross-examination had also stated that the orders from the defendants were received from Bombay office by plaintiff's at Delhi office, although, DW-1 in the cross-examination denied that the purchase order in question was even for the purpose of excise department only. It is also admitted that they did not raise any objection to the invoice Ex. PW-1/2 and Ex. PW-1/3. DW-1 also admitted that they do not have any office at Thane. The contention of the defendants that as per documents Ex. DW-1/2 and Ex. DW-1/3 also exhibited as D-2 and D-3, the parties had limited the jurisdiction of Thane Court, has no merit because none of the parties were having their office or factory nor any part of cause of action had arisen at Thane and therefore, the parties could not have conferred jurisdiction at Thane Court. It has been claimed by the plaintiffs that the enquiry was made by the defendants vide letter dated 20.9.1993 which was received by the plaintiffs at Delhi. The witness of the defendant DW-1 has also admitted that payments were previously made to the plaintiffs at Delhi through demand drafts payable at Delhi. Therefore, the part causes of action arose at Delhi. Therefore, the courts at Delhi have jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit. This issue is accordingly, decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Contd...7/-
-7- ISSUE NO. 2 AND 39 Both the issues are inter-connected and have to be decided together. The onus to prove issue No. 2 was on the plaintiffs whereas the onus to prove issue No. 3 was on defendants. The plaintiffs have pleaded that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the supply and delivery of HTS wires was to be made against the Sales Tax Declaration Form 'C' and payment of the bill issued against the consignment was to be made within 30 days of the receipt of the material. The defendants were required to issue the said forms 'C' against the material supplied/delivered to the defendants and in case, the defendants failed to issue declaration forms 'C' they were liable to pay the amount of Sales Tax and the penalty, if any, imposed by the Sales tax Department upon the plaintiff company. It has been pleaded by the plaintiffs that against the supply of material as mentioned at serial No. 1 and 2 in para 7, the defendants made a payment of Rs. 3,01,953/- against the bill No. 710 leaving a balance of Rs. 17,241.46 and entire amount of bill bearing No. 1255. However, the defendants failed to issue Sales Tax declaration form 'C' against the aforesaid bills for supply of HTS wires and therefore, the defendants were liable to pay additional amount of Sales Tax @ 4 % alongwith interest @ 24 % per annum. In the written statement, the defendants have admitted the supply of material but they have claimed that material was of substandard quality and they had called the plaintiff to take back the goods from the site and according to the defendants, the furnishing of Sales Tax form was not condition precedent and in case of non-supply thereof, no violation of term can be inferred. Therefore, from the pleadings, it is apparent on record that defendants have neither issued the Sales Tax form 'C' for supply of goods nor returned the goods back to the plaintiff. On behalf of defendants, it was submitted by Ld. Counsel that the claim of 4 % Sales Tax on the amount of bill bearing No. 710 dated 27.10.93 and interest @ 24 % per annum has become time barred because the suit has been filed after expiry of statutory period of three years. However, the plaintiff has claimed not only the Sales Tax and penal interest but also balance Rs. 17,241.46. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has submitted that the plaintiff was maintaining a running Contd...8/-nnnnn -8- account of the transaction with the defendants and therefore, there was no question of suit having become barred by limitation. The defendants have received the material subsequently on 24.2.94 and payment against the supply was not made on the ground that material was of sub- standard quality. This suit has been instituted on 18.9.2003 and as per the invoice and delivery challan, 30 days time was otherwise also available to the defendants for making the payment and part payment was admittedly made by the defendants through demand draft. Therefore, it is apparent that there was running account between the parties and therefore, the objection about the bar of limitation has no force. The Sales Tax 'C' Forms are issued by a purchasing dealer in lieu of payment of Sales Tax to the selling dealer of a commodity and in the present case, the consignment of the material was sought to be dispatched at Sabarmati and only part payment was made as such the 'C' form were required to be issued by defendants after receipt of the material which they have not done. The defendants have failed to prove on record that they had issued Form 'C' to the plaintiff for the goods supplied by the plaintiffs and therefore, the defendants are liable to pay the additional amount of Sales Tax @ 4 %. Accordingly, the issue No. 2 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and issue No. 3 is decided against the defendants.
ISSUE No. 410 The onus to prove this issue was on the defendants who have pleaded that goods supplied by plaintiffs were of sub-standard which could not be used by defendants as the required quality prescribed by the Railways while accepting the tender of the defendant was that of the quality conforming to I.S.I. They have also claimed that they had rejected the supplied goods being sub-standard and they called the plaintiffs to take back the goods from site failing which, the defendants were under no obligation as per the contract with railways, to remove them outside the railway premises. However, on behalf of plaintiffs, it has been submitted that the goods were supplied to the defendants in order meeting the requirements of the defendants as per the Contd...9/-
-9-specifications but the defendants have taken a false plea only to avoid payment. The plaintiffs have claimed that material was used by the defendants for their business gains and now, they are avoiding to make payment. They have also denied that the defendants were not under obligation to make the payment for the goods supplied. However, the plaintiffs were also willing to replace any sub-standard material in case, it was so found after testing but the defendants did not test the material even after the personal visit of Mr. Rajesh Aggarwal. Plaintiffs also offered to give rebate vide Ex. PW-1/D1 but the defendants did not give any positive answer and thereafter, the plaintiffs vide letter Ex. PW-1/8A requested the defendants to reload the material at the cost of the plaintiffs so that the plaintiffs could supply fresh material but the defendants did not bother and now, the defendants admittedly are not having the material with them even to return to the plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs, the said material has actually been consumed by them and the defendants are merely avoiding payment. Ld. Counsel for the defendants has submitted that the material was of sub-standard quality and the plaintiff was accordingly informed and Sh. Rajesh Aggarwal did not wait to get the material tested nor the plaintiffs lifted the material from the site. As per the purchase order Ex. PW-1/1, the terms and conditions on the face reverse to the order were applicable and as per condition (3) of the Commercial Conditions, the HTS wire was to be removed from the site at the risk of the plaintiffs, cost and payment made against them was to be adjusted. However, the plaintiff failed to lift the material from the site and the defendants were not responsible.
However, it is pertinent to mention that even though, in the written statement, the defendants have claimed that they had not made any enquiry from the plaintiffs rather the plaintiff had made the enquiry but DW-1 Sh. Nalin Desai in his cross-examination has admitted that letter dated 20.9.93 Ex. PW-1/P-1 was sent by the defendants to the plaintiff which is also Ex. DX. Therefore, it is proved on record that the enquiry was in fact made by the defendants and not by the plaintiffs. The defendants placed the purchase order through Ex. D-1 also Ex. DW- 1/1 and the material was supplied by the plaintiff through invoices of bill Ex. PW-1/2 and Ex. PW-1/3 and the plaintiffs also sent letter Ex.PW-1/4 Contd...10/-
-10-to Ex. PW-1/8 asking the defendants to arrange the payment. PW-1 has testified that the defendants made a payment of only Rs. 3,01,953/- leaving balance of Rs. 17,241.46 against the entire bill, Sales Tax 'C' Forms were to be issued and entire payment against bill No. 1255 dated 24.2.94 was to be made and Sales Tax Forms 'C' were to be issued by the defendants which was not made despite repeated reminders. In the cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that the defendants communicated to the plaintiffs about the sub-standard material which finds mention in letter dated 25.3.94 Ex. PW-1/8A. He also admitted that as per the terms and conditions, the goods were to be lifted by them but the defendants did not permit them to lift the same. He claimed that defendants did not get the material tested in the factory of defendant in presence of Sh. Rajesh Aggarwal and plaintiff did not admit the rejection of the goods. In respect of another question, he stated that defendants did not rebook the goods and also denied the suggestion that it was responsibility of the plaintiffs to remove the goods from the place of defendants. In the cross-examination of DW-1, Mr. Nalin Desai had admitted that he cannot say whether 100 % test certificate were sent by plaintiff to the defendant through Ex. PW-1/4 and again said that it was correct that they accepted the test certificate as sent by plaintiff through Ex. DW-1/4 which clearly shows that the plaintiffs had sent the goods/material to the defendants after testing it as per the specification and standard. However, DW-1 claimed that the acceptance was to come from Railway. No acceptance or rejection from Railways has been claimed or placed on record till date. Therefore, defendants have failed to prove on record that goods supplied by the plaintiffs were of sub- standard quality. No adverse inference can be drawn from Letter Ex. PW-1/DX1 which merely indicates offer to give rebate if the material was found to be sub-standard on testing which was not done by defendants. Therefore, there was no material on record to show that the material supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant was of sub-standard quality and therefore, the material/goods supplied by plaintiffs to the defendants cannot be said to have been rejected and therefore, the liability to either Contd...11/-
-11-pay and accept the material or to return the material at the cost of the defendant was on the defendants. Even the Commercial condition as per clause 3 attached to Ex. DW-1/1 was not accepted and cannot be said to be binding on plaintiff, yet the defendants have failed to prove on record that material supplied by the plaintiffs was of sub-standard quality and was rightly rejected. Even as per Section 43 of Sale of Goods Act, 1930, when the defendants have failed to prove on record that they have rejected the goods for any valid cause, the defendants were bound to make arrangement for either payment of the goods or to return the goods at the cost of defendants to the plaintiff. Admittedly, the defendants are not in a position to return the material to the plaintiff and therefore, they are liable to pay the dues. Therefore, the defendants have failed to prove this issue and accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
ISSUE No. 511 The defendants have admittedly failed to make the payment of the outstanding bill amount as well as failed to issue the necessary Sales Tax Declaration 'C' Forms and therefore, as per the details given in para 7 and 13 of the plaint proved through Ex. PW-1/2 and Ex. PW-1/3 and letters Ex. PW-1/4 to Ex. Ex. PW-1/8, the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the amount against the dues/bills amounting to Rs. 3,80,458.08. The plaintiff is also entitled to charge tax @ 4 % on both the bills as per the details given in para 13. It was a commercial transaction and therefore, the interest @ 24 % per annum is reasonable and plaintiff is also entitled to interest as mentioned in para 13 of the plaint. The issue is accordingly, decided in favour of the plaintiffs.
RELIEF 12 In view of the above findings, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants for a sum of Rs. 6,71,874.54 alongwith cost and interest @ 24 % per annum, pendentelite as well as Contd...12/-
-12-future till realisation. Decree-sheet be drawn accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY.
DATED: (T.S. KASHYAP )
26.09.2007 ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE:
DELHI.
N.
SUIT No. 63/03
26.9.2007
Present: None.
Vide separate judgment, dictated to steno, the suit has been decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants for a sum of Rs. 6,71,874.54 alongwith cost and interest @ 24 % per annum, pendentelite as well as future till realisation. Decree-sheet be drawn accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.
(T.S. KASHYAP) ADJ/DELHI 26.09.2007 The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown for jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the little lazy dog.
SUIT No. 183/06PW-1: Sh. Rambir Singh, S/o Late Sh. Babul Lal, R/o Y-70, Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016.
ON S.A. I have filed my evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW- 1/A. It bears my signatures at point X and X1. Original documents in my possession have been placed on record out of which some documents have been exhibited as Ex. PW-1/1 to PW-1/4. Rest of the documents have been marked from X-1 to X-9. My affidavit is true and correct.
XXXXXX by Sh. Mayank Goel, counsel for defendant It is incorrect to suggest that the document dated 24.8.99 Agreement to Sell was blank without any date or figure at the time of signing. It is incorrect to suggest that the figures in this documents were filled up subsequently. I cannot say whether there was overwriting of figures on this document. It is incorrect to suggest that I do not have any receipt regarding payment of Rs. 2,25,000/- to Mr. Parveen Kumar. I do not remember whether I have placed on record any such receipt. I did not withdraw the said amount from any bank. However, I had received the money with respect to transaction of a property. It is correct that I have not placed on record any document of that property to show this amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- was received from that transaction. It is wrong to suggest that I have not made any payment to Sh. Parveen Kumar and that no such agreement was entered into between me and Sh. Parveen Kumar. It is correct to suggest that on the date of said agreement to sell , Sh. Parveen Kumar was not competent to sell the property as no lease or conveyance deed was executed by DDA in his favour. Vol. However, he was allottee of shop in question. It is correct that I have previous dealings with Dr. S.K. Singh defendant No. 2. It is incorrect to suggest that the defendant had advanced a loan of Rs. 6,26,000/- to me in the year 2001. Vol. He had given a sum of Rs. 5,06,000/- in the year 2001, around December 2004. Again said around November 2004 to January 2005, I gave a cheque to him against which, he got a demand draft prepared for Rs. 1,19,258/- against my cheque of Rs. 1,20,000/- and I had also issued a pronote. It is incorrect to suggest that I did not issue the cheque for Rs. 1,20,000/- against the defendant got a demand draft prepared for Rs. 1,19,225/-. It is correct that I have not placed on record any copy of said pronote. It is wrong to suggest that I was acting in the capacity of a broker between Sh. Praveen Kumar and defendant No. 1 and 2. It is incorrect to suggest that a sum of Rs. 775/- was ever charged by bank towards issuance of three demand drafts and the said amount has never been charged from me. IT is correct that any of the three demand drafts of Rs. 3 lacs, 2,06,000/- and Rs. 1.19,225/- were never issued in favour of DDA from my account. It is incorrect to suggest that these drafts were handed over to me by defendant No. 1 and 2 to be deposited in DDA in the capacity of a broker. It is correct that till date, there is no sale deed of this shop in my favour. It is incorrect to suggest that I have not received exclusive possession of the suit shop on or 10.6.05 or thereafter. I had received the possession on 10.6.2005. It is wrong to suggest that I had handed over one key to defendant No. 2 on said date. It is correct that I have not got installed an electricity meter in the suit shop after 10.6.2005. It is correct that the suit shop has not been mutated in my name by MCD. It is incorrect to suggest that on 28.7.06, I tried to interfere in peaceful possession of the suit shop against which the defendant No. 2 lodged a police complaint. I have not paid any property tax towards the suit shop. It is incorrect to suggest that the defendant No. 2 is not indulging any money business as he is doctor by profession. It is correct that defendant No. 2 professionally is a doctor. It is incorrect to suggest that I have illegally dispossessed the defendant No. 1 and 2 from the suit shop on 4.9.06. It is wrong to suggest that the photograph Ex. PW-1/4A was taken during the night time. It is also wrong to suggest that this photograph was taken after dark. Vol. The photograph was taken in the day time. It is correct that against the cheque of Rs. 1,20,000/- issued by me, a criminal complaint is pending in Patiala House Court. It is incorrect to suggest that I am in collusion with defendant No. 3. It is incorrect to suggest that I had brought Sh. Parveen Kumar in the court on 4.9.06. It is incorrect to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
RO & AC ADJ/DELHI
29.09.2007
The contention of the defendants that as per documents Ex. DW-1/2 and Ex. DW-1/3 also exhibited as D-2 and D-3, the parties had limited the jurisdiction of Thane Court, has no merit because none of the parties were having their office or factory nor any part of cause of action had arisen at Thane and therefore, the parties could not have conferred jurisdiction at Thane Court. It has been claimed by the plaintiffs that the enquiry was made by the defendants vide letter dated 20.9.1993 which was received by the plaintiffs at Delhi. The witness of the defendant DW-1 has also admitted that payments were previously made to the plaintiffs at Delhi through demand drafts payable at Delhi. Therefore, the part causes of action arose at Delhi. Therefore, the courts at Delhi have jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit. This issue is accordingly, decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
SUIT No. 183/06PW-1: Sh. Rambir Singh, S/o Late Sh. Babul Lal, R/o Y-70, Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016.
XXXXXX Sh. Pawan Singh Adv. for defendant No. 3 who is exparte.
It is correct that defendant No. 3 had given possession of the suit shop to me on 10.6.05. It is also correct that all the documents were also handed over by him. It is also correct that I had introduced defendant No. 2 with the defendant No. 3. It is incorrect to suggest that I have wrongly impleaded defendant No. 3 in this case.
RO & AC ADJ/DELHI
29.09.2007