Delhi District Court
Shri Kamal Gupta vs Smt. Krishna Pushya on 20 May, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY SHARMAI :
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT01)
EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
CS (Comm) No. 144/2020
Shri Kamal Gupta
Proprietor of M/s Insight
Plot No. 418, PocketC,
IFC Wholesales Paper Market,
Near PS Gazipur
Delhi - 110096 ................Plaintiff
Versus
Smt. Krishna Pushya
Proprietor of M/s Sidhi Vinayak Enterprises
B253, Priyadarshni Vihar,
Laxmi Nagar,
Delhi - 110092 ................Defendant
Date of institution : 20.7.2020
Date of reserving judgment : 25.4.2023
Date of judgment : 20.5.2023
JUDGMENT:
The plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendant seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.33,32,676/ alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.
1.1 In brief, the facts as averred in the plaint are that the plaintiff is a stockiest cum consignment agent of M/s Maped India Stationery Products Pvt. Ltd. and the defendant purchased the stationery items from the plaintiff against tax invoices. The plaintiff also maintained ledger account, as per which an amount CS (Comm) No. 144/2020 Kamal Gupta Vs. Krishna Pushya 1 of 18 of Rs.23,14,757/ stood outstanding as on 03.2.2018. The plaintiff had repeatedly requested the defendant to clear the outstanding amount but the defendant avoided on one pretext or the other. The plaintiff issued legal notice dated 19.12.2019 to the defendant which was replied by her vide reply dated 24.12.2019 and denied to pay the due amount and hence the present suit.
2. Defendant was duly served with the summons of the suit and filed written statement through her Counsel. In the written statement, a preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction of this Court was taken and it was stated that no cause of action took place within the jurisdiction of this Court. It was stated that the plaintiff is a subsidiary firm developed by M/s Maped India Stationery Product Pvt. Ltd. in order to evade taxes, illegal circulation of stock material and other malafide activities, M/s Maped India Stationery Product Pvt. Ltd. had been transacting on behalf of the plaintiff with the defendant and had also generated invoice from their Mumbai office, while the plaintiff is a third party between the agreements held between the defendant and M/s Maped India Stationery Product Pvt. Ltd. The invoices were raised by M/s Maped India Stationery Product Pvt. Ltd. from the accounts of the plaintiff just to evade the tax. The defendant had never raised any purchase order nor ever intended to purchase any such goods from the plaintiff and thus, the defendant does not come under the purview of the definition of 'Buyer' under Section 2(1) of the Sales of Goods Act.
2.1 On merits, the defendant claimed herself to be the sole proprietor of M/s Sidhi Vinayak Enterprises and a CS (Comm) No. 144/2020 Kamal Gupta Vs. Krishna Pushya 2 of 18 Consignment Agent of M/s Maped India Stationery Product Pvt. Ltd. It was claimed that the defendant was an exclusive seller of its products in Delhi and was not authorized to purchase any kind of product or to transact with any other business enterprise, as per the terms and conditions of the Agreement dated 02.5.2014 executed between her and M/s Maped India Stationery Product Pvt. Ltd. Further, as per the said Agreement, the defendant and the plaintiff could only sell the products to the area distributor and to any other party on the prices quoted/directed by M/s Maped India Stationery Product Pvt. Ltd. Thus, no question of selling the goods by the plaintiff to the defendant ever arose, as M/s Maped India Stationery Product Pvt. Ltd. never directed the plaintiff or the defendant for any such transactions between them. 2.2 Thus, it was stated that the defendant is not liable for any legitimate debt against the plaintiff and certain goods were transferred by M/s Maped India Stationery Product Pvt. Ltd. only to evade the taxes while the defendant never raised any purchase order. However, after exchange of certain emails between the defendant and M/s Maped India Stationery Product Pvt. Ltd., the defendant decided to windup the business with M/s Maped India Stationery Product Pvt. Ltd. and requested it to take the goods back and to settle the account with her and upon several requests, the said company agreed for the same. On 15.3.2018, the defendant issued a Return Note regarding return of goods and requested the plaintiff and M/s Maped India Stationery Product Pvt. Ltd. to issue the credit notes against the returned goods but they did not pay any heed to her requests. It was also agreed CS (Comm) No. 144/2020 Kamal Gupta Vs. Krishna Pushya 3 of 18 between the defendant and M/s Maped India Stationery Product Pvt. Ltd. that the latter would directly collect the outstanding dues from the debtors of the defendant firm and adjust the amount in the final settlement but M/s Maped India Stationery Product Pvt. Ltd. tried to manipulate the accounts. 2.3 The defendant submitted that after adjustment of all the accounts including payments received from the debtors of the defendant and return of goods made to the plaintiff, M/s Maped India Stationery Product Pvt. Ltd. was liable to pay Rs.23,04,309.49p as on 01.11.2018 which was duly acknowledged by the said company vide email dated 15.5.2019. However, instead of issuing credit notes and clearing the accounts, the plaintiff has filed the present false suit on behalf of M/s Maped India Pvt. Ltd. against the defendant in order to extort money from the defendant.
3. The plaintiff also filed replication to the written statement of the defendants, reiterating the contents of the plaint and denying the counter allegations.
4. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 18.1.2021 :
1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree in the sum of Rs.33,32,676/ with interest, if any, and if yes, at what rate? OPP
2) Whether this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the present suit? OPD
3) Whether there was no relationship of buyer and purchaser between the parties?
OPD
4) Whether the present suit has not been
properly instituted, signed and verified? OPD CS (Comm) No. 144/2020 Kamal Gupta Vs. Krishna Pushya 4 of 18
5) Relief.
4.1 Vide order dated 11.10.2022, an additional issues was also framed numbered as Issue No. 4A which is as under :
'Whether the suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary party namely Maped India? OPD'
5. At the trial, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1. He deposed the facts as stated in the plaint, by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the following documents :
Copy of ledger account of his firm as Ex.PW1/1.
Ledger account of the defendant as Ex.PW1/2.
Tax retail invoices alongwith dispatch/courier receipts as Ex.PW1/3 (colly.). (Pages No. 22 to 33) Legal Notice dated 19.12.2019 as Ex.PW1/4. Postal receipt and tracking report in respect thereof, as Ex.PW1/5 and PW1/6 respectively.
Reply of the defendant to the legal notice as Ex.PW1/7.
NonStarter Report from the DLSA as Ex.PW1/8.
Certificate/Affidavit under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW1/8.
6. The defendant, though filed her affidavit in evidence, but only examined her son Shri Amit Pushya as DW1. He led his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/A and relied upon the following documents :
Copy of Contract between Maped India Stationery Product Pvt. Ltd. and defendant's firm dated 02.5.2024 as Mark D1.
Copy of email dated 09.11.2017 sent by Maped India Stationery Product Pvt. Ltd. to defendant's firm as Ex.DW1/2.
CS (Comm) No. 144/2020Kamal Gupta Vs. Krishna Pushya 5 of 18 Copy of email dated 05.1.2018 sent by defendant's firm to Maped India Stationery Product Pvt. Ltd. as Ex.DW1/3.
Copy of emails 08.3.2018, 15.3.2018 and Letter of Return of Goods issued by defendant's firm dated 15.3.1018, as Ex.DW1/4 (colly.).
Copy of email dated 06.10.2018 sent by Maped India Stationery Product Pvt. Ltd. to defendant's firm for settlement of the amount as Ex.DW1/5.
Copy of email dated 15.9.2018 sent by Maped India Stationery Product Pvt. Ltd. to defendant's firm stating the statement of accounts as Ex.DW1/6.
Affidavit under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act in support of computer generated documents, signed and executed by the defendant Smt. Krishna Pushya as Ex.DW1/7.
7. I have heard Shri Nitin Garg - Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, Shri Kanishk Kharbanda - Ld. Counsel for the defendant and have also gone through the written submissions filed by both the Ld. Counsels as well as records of the case.
My issuewise findings are as under :
ISSUE No. 2 :
8. It was submitted by Ld. Counsel for the defendant that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit since a jurisdictional clause is mentioned on the alleged invoices which says 'subject to jurisdiction of Valsad and Mumbai'. Ld. Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Swastic Gases Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (SLP 5595 of 2012), wherein it was held that "The very existence of a jurisdiction clause in an agreement makes the intention of the parties to an agreement quite clear and it is not advisable to CS (Comm) No. 144/2020 Kamal Gupta Vs. Krishna Pushya 6 of 18 read such a clause in the agreement like a statute." 8.1 In the said judgment, the Court held that if parties choose a particular jurisdiction which court otherwise had jurisdiction as per law, then only that court will have the jurisdiction. However, in the instant case, the plaintiff was having its place of business at Punjab whereas the defendant was operating from Delhi and therefore, neither the Court at Valsad or Mumbai could have the jurisdiction. The suit could have been filed either at Punjab or in Delhi and since the defendant was working from Delhi, the suit has been rightly filed at Delhi. Hence, it is held that this Court has the required territorial jurisdiction to decide this suit. This issue is decided against the defendant.
ISSUE No. 4 :
9. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant but there was no crossexamination of the plaintiff on this issue. It was submitted that the suit was not verified as per the provisions of Order 6 Rule 15A of the Commercial Courts Act. However, a perusal of the plaint and the verification clause shows that the plaint has been duly verified in terms of the provisions contained in Order 6 Rule 15A CPC and is also supported by a Statement of truth as well as affidavit of the plaintiff. Hence, this issue is also decided against the defendant.
ISSUES No. 1 and 3 :
10. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the written statement of the defendant cannot be read in evidence nor the defence raised therein can be relied or can be CS (Comm) No. 144/2020 Kamal Gupta Vs. Krishna Pushya 7 of 18 said to be proved since the defendant herself never entered the witness box to prove the same. Countering the arguments, Ld. Counsel for the defendant relied upon a judgment in Om Prakash Vs. Inder Kaur 2009 (107) DRJ 263 Delhi. In that case, the plaintiff was not examined as a witness. It was held as under :
"Even otherwise any person is a good witness if he deposes about the facts which are in his personal knowledge, whether he is a father or an attorney or a son or a neighbour. What law requires is that the deposition must be on the facts within the knowledge of the witness to which the witness is a privity. The evidence given by a witness cannot be rejected on the ground that he is a father or a relative, nor any adverse inference can be drawn against the plaintiff on the ground that he had not appeared his own witness in the case."
10.1 In the instant case, DW1 was the son of the defendant and deposed that he had been taking care of the day to day activities of the business concern of the defendant and was having knowledge of facts and circumstances qua the present suit. Thus, in light of the above judgment, DW1 was a competent witness and was competent to depose about the facts of the case and his testimony or the defence raised in the written statement cannot be rejected only on the ground that the defendant herself did not entered the witness box.
10.2 The defendant has outrightly denied any transaction between her and the plaintiff and has raised a plea that she never placed any purchase order upon the plaintiff nor purchased any goods from him. It was claimed that she was not a 'Buyer' as per its definition appearing in Section 2(1) of the Sales of Goods Act. The said provision defines 'Buyer' as a person who buys or CS (Comm) No. 144/2020 Kamal Gupta Vs. Krishna Pushya 8 of 18 agrees to buy goods. SubSection (2) defines delivery as meaning voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another. 10.3 Thus, in order to make a contract, a person should have agreed to buy and should have received the possession of the goods voluntarily. In the instant case, there is nothing on record to show that the plaintiff ever placed any order for the goods and had voluntarily received them with a promise to pay their price. In the crossexamination of PW1, he admitted that no purchase order was given by the defendant to him for purchase of any material and added that the dealings used to be verbal. He was confronted with the invoices Ex.PW1/3 (colly.), at Pages 22, 29, 32 and 33 which were having purchase order numbers. The witness answered that he had no knowledge about the purchase order numbers mentioned thereupon. It means that a fictitious purchase order number was mentioned on these invoices which is clear from the fact as deposed by him that no purchase order was ever received from the defendant.
10.4 It was further deposed by PW1 that the orders never used to be received from the defendant directly but only through Maped India Pvt. Ltd. and that the delivery of the goods used to be made through him to the purchaser. He further deposed that he has not brought on record any document with regard to the written directions provided by Maped India Pvt. Ltd. regarding transactions and was not having directions from the company. In that case, there is nothing to suggest as to when and how the defendant placed orders upon the plaintiff and under what authority he supplied the goods directly to the defendant without CS (Comm) No. 144/2020 Kamal Gupta Vs. Krishna Pushya 9 of 18 any directions from his principal, i.e. Maped India Pvt. Ltd. 10.5 It is the case of the defendant that she never issued any road permit or any eway bill to the plaintiff or Maped India Pvt. Ltd. for the transportation of the goods from Punjab to Delhi. On the contrary, the defendant specifically refused to the principal company, i.e. Maped India Pvt. Ltd. to receive the goods, vide email dated 15.1.2018 Ex.DW1/3. It shows that the defendant never intended to purchase any goods from the plaintiff.
10.6 It is also worthwhile to mention that as per the plaintiff, he had supplied goods worth more than Rs.23 lacs to the defendant within a period of about 23 months, as per the invoices. Ld. Counsel for the defendant relied upon Clause 5 of the Sales & Collection Guidelines of the Agreement dated 02.5.2014 between her firm and Maped India Pvt. Ltd. According to that Clause, the defendant was given a monthly target of Rs.10 lacs. Hence, as rightly pointed out, there was no question for the defendant having raised a demand for such a huge amount of goods.
10.7 It was contended on behalf of the defendant that the goods were forcibly delivered to the defendant under undue influence of Maped India Pvt. Ltd. and the invoices were raised by the principal company with the name of the plaintiff towards transfer of goods. The defendant relied upon the email dated 09.11.2017 of Maped India Pvt. Ltd. Ex.DW1/2, wherein it is stated that 'attached stocks statement of the product have to sell on or before 31.12.2017 and insight, i.e. the proprietorship firm CS (Comm) No. 144/2020 Kamal Gupta Vs. Krishna Pushya 10 of 18 of the plaintiff, ITC claim for filing trans. From stock of June 2017, still lying stock at Zirakpur Warehouse, amount Rs.24,50,850/ and on this value available input tax credit is Rs.64,207/.' 10.8 Ld. Counsel for the defendant submitted that the Goods & Services Tax Act came in July 2017 and as per the govt. norms, the plaintiff would have received Rs.64,207/ as input tax credit if the stock lying with it at Punjab were transferred or sold before 31.12.2017. It was in these circumstances, that false invoices were created by the plaintiff on the directions of Maped India Pvt. Ltd. and the goods were transferred/supplied to the defendant. This argument appears to be valid in view of the fact that the defendant had never raised any purchase order and Maped India Pvt. Ltd. through the defendant was desirous of claiming the input tax credit of the stock lying at the warehouse of the plaintiff at Zirakpur. 10.9 It is also worthwhile to mention that DW1 in his crossexamination, categorically deposed that there was no direct business relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff and that the defendant never purchased any goods from the plaintiff directly. He further added that the goods were transferred from one consignment agent to the other. There was no further cross examination of the witness on this fact nor any suggestion to the contrary was given to him. It again shows that the defendant never intended to purchase any goods from the plaintiff. 10.10 The Consignee agent Agreement relied upon by the plaintiff Ex.PW1/D4 contains Clause No. 13, and it says that CS (Comm) No. 144/2020 Kamal Gupta Vs. Krishna Pushya 11 of 18 "The consignment agent shall sell the goods only to Area Business Channel Partner, i.e. Distributors, School supplier, Corporate Supplier, Retailer and Modern Retail, appointed by the company representative and to any other party as per the written direction of the company." It does not mention nor permits the consignment agent to sell the goods to another consignment agent and if any such sale was to be made, then as per the said Agreement, it was to be made as per the written directions of M/s Maped India Pvt. Ltd. There is nothing on record to suggest that the principal company ever gave any written direction to the plaintiff to sell the goods to the defendant. Hence, any sale, as alleged by the plaintiff to the defendant, was violative of the terms and conditions of the said Agreement. 10.11 Even the invoices relied upon by the plaintiff and against which the goods were allegedly sold to the defendant have not been duly proved. PW1 was confronted with the said invoices Ex.PW1/3 (colly.) and he deposed that they bear the signatures of his employees but could not name the said employee who signed upon it saying that they pertain to the year 2017. He further was unable to say if the signatures on the said invoices were of one Juria, an employee of M/s Maped India Pvt. Ltd. and explained that in his warehouse, the support staff of M/s Maped India Pvt. Ltd. also used to remain present and Juria maybe one of them. This shows that he had not denied the signatures on the said invoices to be of an employee of M/s Maped India Pvt. Ltd. and therefore, it cannot be said that the said invoices have been raised by the plaintiff.
CS (Comm) No. 144/2020Kamal Gupta Vs. Krishna Pushya 12 of 18
10.12 It was pointed out by Ld. Counsel for the defendant
that the email address appearing on the said invoices was '[email protected]'. PW1 deposed that the said email address belongs to M/s Maped India Pvt. Ltd. and he used to operate the said email through his employees. In his further crossexamination dated 07.3.2023, he deposed that he was not using the said email and it was being used by the staff of M/s Maped India Pvt. Ltd., thus selfcontradicting himself. These all facts show that the goods were transferred involuntarily from the plaintiff to the defendant on the instructions of M/s Maped India Pvt. Ltd. by creating invoices Ex.PW1/3 (colly.) and there was actually no 'sale', as alleged by the plaintiff. 10.13 Another factor which suggests that the goods were not voluntarily received by the defendant is that after receiving the goods, the defendant promptly wrote an email to the defendant dated 05.1.2018 Ex.DW1/3 wherein the defendant categorically stated that he was unable to take such bulk quantity of goods as he was lacking space in his godown. It was deposed by DW1 that the goods in dispute were returned to the plaintiff in March 2018 and added that the entire closing stock was also returned to the plaintiff as he took over as consignee agent of Delhi after the defendant closed her business. PW1 also admitted that the defendant had wind up her business with M/s Maped India Pvt. Ltd. and thereafter, he took over as consignment agent for the territory of Delhi. He also deposed that he closed his firm 'Insight Punjab' and its warehouse was also closed at Punjab in the year 2019 and the stock lying there was transferred to Delhi CS (Comm) No. 144/2020 Kamal Gupta Vs. Krishna Pushya 13 of 18 and also returned to M/s Maped India Pvt. Ltd.
10.14 It is the case of the defendant that she had wind up her business with M/s Maped India Pvt. Ltd. and a settlement agreement took place between the two wherein it was decided that the defendant will return back the closing stock lying with the defendant including the goods in dispute and M/s Insight Books Pvt. Ltd. (a company owned by the plaintiff as admitted by him) shall take over the business for the territory of Delhi. In this regard, DW1 relied on various emails exchanged between her and M/s Maped India Pvt. Ltd. Ex.DW1/4 (colly.). In the e mail dated 09.3.2018, M/s Maped India Pvt. Ltd. wrote to the defendant that 'M/s Siddhi Vinayak Enterprises (defendant) sales return to M/s Maped India Pvt. Ltd. M/s Maped India Pvt. Ltd. will be to Insight Books Pvt. Ltd.'. In the email dated 15.3.2018, M/s Maped India Pvt. Ltd. again wrote 'Present available stock return Insight Punjab. After confirmation we can arrange the pickup from Delhi to Insight Punjab.' These communications were made on the same email appearing on the disputed invoices and which PW1 deposed that he was using, meaning thereby that he was well within the knowledge of this settlement between the defendant and M/s Maped India Pvt. Ltd. It is worthwhile to mention that the plaintiff has not denied or disputed any of the e mails relied upon by the defendant.
10.15 DW1 further deposed that after the defendant closed her business with M/s Maped India Pvt. Ltd. the goods were transferred to the plaintiff and the transport was also arranged by M/s Maped India Pvt. Ltd. which is reflected in the email dated CS (Comm) No. 144/2020 Kamal Gupta Vs. Krishna Pushya 14 of 18 09.3.2018 Ex.DW1/4 (colly.) and its copy was also marked to the plaintiff. He further deposed that the goods were received and acknowledged by the plaintiff vide Ex.DW1/4 (colly.) at Page 27. However, he could not identify the signatures of he recipient at point X but deposed that the signatures at point Y were of an employee of M/s Maped India Pvt. Ltd. but also could not identify the person . It is to be noted that there was again no further crossexamination of the witness on this fact nor any suggestion was given to the contrary that the goods were not so returned to the plaintiff. It shows and proves that the goods were returned to the plaintiff as they were never ordered or required by the defendant and further proves the intention of the defendant that she never intended to purchase the disputed goods from the plaintiff which he could have not sold to her otherwise as per the Agreement between him and M/s Maped India Pvt. Ltd. Ex.PW1/D4. It further shows that the goods were only transferred through invoices by the plaintiff to the defendant on the directions of M/s Maped India Pvt. Ltd. in order to avail the input tax credit against the said goods and to evade taxes. The defendant never intended to purchase the said goods from the plaintiff nor placed any order for the same and they were transferred to her involuntarily. It is also noteworthy that in the plaint, the plaintiff stated that he demanded the cost of the invoices from the defendant repeatedly but in his cross examination, he admitted that he never demanded the said amount in writing from the defendant before issuing the legal notice nor had paid the cost of the goods under invoice to M/s CS (Comm) No. 144/2020 Kamal Gupta Vs. Krishna Pushya 15 of 18 Maped India Pvt. Ltd.
10.16 Thus, it is clear that the defendant never purchased any goods from the plaintiff against the disputed invoices nor intended to, which goods were duly returned by her under the advise and knowledge of M/s Maped India Pvt. Ltd. to the plaintiff's concern M/s Insight Books Pvt. Ltd. and hence, defendant cannot be made liable to pay for the cost of the said invoices. Similarly, it is clear that there was no relationship of 'Buyer' and 'Purchaser' between the two parties and the entire transaction was a sham. Hence, both these issues are decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff. ISSUE No. 4A :
11. The defendant had filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading M/s Maped India Pvt. Ltd. as a party but that application was disposed of holding that it involved a mix issue of law and fact and as such , this issue was framed. 11.1 It is clear from the discussion on the above issues that the goods moved from the plaintiff to the defendant on the advise of M/s Maped India Pvt. Ltd. Infact, it is clear from the Consignee Agreement relied upon by the plaintiff that he could not have sold the goods to the defendant without the written permission of M/s Maped India Pvt. Ltd. The defendant has also duly proved that she had wind up her business with M/s Maped India Pvt. Ltd. under a settlement and all the accounts were settled and the stock lying with her including the goods in dispute were transferred to the company of the plaintiff under the advise and with the help of M/s Maped India Pvt. Ltd. It is a matter of CS (Comm) No. 144/2020 Kamal Gupta Vs. Krishna Pushya 16 of 18 record that both the plaintiff and the defendant were consignee agents of M/s Maped India Pvt. Ltd. and they could not have transacted inter se without the intervention and directions of M/s Maped India Pvt. Ltd. Even the invoices in question were prepared on the advise of M/s Maped India Pvt. Ltd. by its employees. It is also observed from the crossexamination of PW1 that the accounts of both the parties were regularly checked and supervised by M/s Maped India Pvt. Ltd. The said invoices were also manipulated as in one of such invoice, the invoice number contains alpha numerical number and it was deposed by PW1 that invoices as per alphabetical order were raised for the first time in July 2017 to December 2017 and not earlier but could not explain any reason about it. It was deposed by PW1 that a sum of Rs.3 lacs was deducted from the account of the defendant on the asking of M/s Maped India Pvt. Ltd. which again shows that he was acting on the advise of the said principal company. It is also clear that the plaintiff was using the email of M/s Maped India Pvt. Ltd. for all the transactions and therefore, such transactions were within the knowledge of M/s Maped India Pvt. Ltd. PW1 deposed that he was regularly supplying information regarding the ledgers, balance sheet etc. of his firm to M/s Maped India Pvt. Ltd. then in such circumstances, it cannot be presumed that M/s Maped India Pvt. Ltd. would not be having any knowledge about the transaction in dispute. In such circumstances, it is held that the suit could not have been effectively decided without impleading M/s Maped India Pvt. Ltd. which was a necessary party but the plaintiff failed to CS (Comm) No. 144/2020 Kamal Gupta Vs. Krishna Pushya 17 of 18 implead it for the reasons best known to him. This issue is decided in favour of the defendant.
ISSUE No.5/Relief :
12. In light of the above discussion and findings on the above issues, it is held that the plaintiff is not entitled for the recovery of the suit amount from the defendant and thus, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 20th day of May 2023 (SANJAY SHARMAI) District Judge (Commercial Court) East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CS (Comm) No. 144/2020 Kamal Gupta Vs. Krishna Pushya 18 of 18