Delhi District Court
Banwari Lal Arora And Sons vs Sh. Ranjeet Saini, Proprietor Of M/S Rsm ... on 19 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. AMIT KUMAR : DISTRICT JUDGE
(COMMERCIAL COURT-01)
NORTH DISTRICT: ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
CS (COMM.) NO.381/2020
CNR No. DLNT01-006830-2020
M/s Banwari Lal Arora & Sons,
A registered Partnership Firm,
through its partner Anil Kumar Arora,
G-117, Gali no. 7, Swaroop Nagar,
Delhi-110042.
Also At:
202, Ist Library Road, Azad Market,
Delhi-110006.
Mob NO.9891040550, 9999924383.
E-mail: [email protected]
.....PLAINTIFF
VS
Ranjeet Saini,
Proprietor of M/s RSM Enterprises,
G-31, Gali no. 2, Near Aruna Park,
Shakarpur, Delhi-110092.
Mob No. 9871457751,
E-mail: [email protected]
...DEFENDANT
Date of institution of case : 29.10.2020
Date of arguments : 05.05.2025
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 19.05.2025
JUDGMENT:
1. Present is a suit seeking recovery of Rs. 30,64,453/- along with pendentelite and future interest @ 18% per annum and the brief facts necessary for disposal of this suit as averred in the plaint are that the plaintiff is a registered partnership firm and is Digitally signed Page No.1 of 11 AMIT by AMIT KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.05.19 16:02:09 +0530 super stockiest of M/s Parag Milk Foods Limited (refereed as PMF here in after). The defendant being sole proprietor of M/s RSM Enterprises and a distributor of PMF, approached the plaintiff through management of PMF and requested to supply the products of PMF like ghee, milk etc. The plaintiff supplied goods to defendant from time to time and as per running statement of account, as on 12.01.2018, a sum of Rs. 20,49,632/- stands outstanding against the defendant. The defendant in discharge of this liability issued a cheque of Rs. 20,49,632/- dated 30.04.2018 but the same returned uncleared for the reason "payment stopped by drawer". Legal notice dated 25.05.2018 was issued by plaintiff and complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was filed. Since the defendant did not pay, this suit has been filed to recover the outstanding amount with interest @18% per annum.
2. In the written statement, the defendant did not dispute the business relations between the parties. It was however stated that PMF is a necessary party. This court does not have territorial jurisdiction. Plaintiff is not a registered firm. On merits, it was stated that defendant was a distributor of PMF and plaintiff being super stockiest of PMF approached the defendant at his office. The partners of the plaintiff and the employees of PMF used to collect security cheques from the distributors and shop keepers in the market before supplying the goods. The plaintiff also collected security cheque from the defendant bearing cheque no. 000100 before supplying the goods. Similarly, defendant also gave two blank cheques to PMF for security purposes. The plaintiff and PMF between 31.10.2017 to 30.12.2017 adopted Digitally signed Page No.2 of 11 AMIT by AMIT KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.05.19 16:02:14 +0530 tendency to supply goods in the market without prior order and without knowing the requirement of the distributor. The plaintiff and the employees of PMF namely Mr. Vinay Gupta, Mr. Anil Dubey, Mr. Bhaskar Sharma tried to supply goods in huge quantity to the defendant without order and deliberately raised bills. The PMF raised bills of Rs.43,80,836/- and the plaintiff raised bills of Rs.48,78,804/-. The defendant kept goods only worth Rs.24,73,597/- from PMF and of Rs.28,29,172/- of the plaintiff. The defendant had already made payment of Rs.24,73,597/- to PMF and of Rs.28,29,172/- to the plaintiff. The rest of the goods were returned and taken back by Mr. Bhaskar Sharma who was the sales officer of PMF, at the instance of plaintiff and PMF and hence, there is no liability of the defendant. The cheque in question was got stopped by the defendant as the plaintiff despite several request did not return the security cheque. It is stated that the present suit is a counter blast to the criminal complaint filed by the defendant against the plaintiff, PMF and its employees in the year 2018.
3. In the replication, the contents of the WS were disputed and that of the plaint were reiterated.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 25.07.2022:
(i) Whether the plaintiff had supplied goods worth of Rs.20,49,632/- to the defendant? OPP
(ii) Whether the cheque bearing no.000100 dated 30.04.2018 in the sum of Rs.20,49,632/- issued by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff was in fact issued as a Page No.3 of 11 Digitally signed by AMIT AMIT KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.05.19 16:02:19 +0530 blank security cheque only as contended by the defendant in the written statement? OPD
(iii) Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree in the amount of Rs.30,64,453/- as prayed for? OPP
(iv) Whether plaintiff is entitled to any interest, if so, at what rate and for what period? OPP
(v) Relief.
5. The plaintiff to prove its case examined its partner as PW1 whereas the defendant examined himself as DW1.
6. It was argued by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that as per ledger account Ex.DW1/P6 admitted by the defendant, the liability of the defendant for the principal amount of Rs.20,49,632/- stands duly proved. The defendant admitted in the cross examination that he took GST benefit of all the supplies made by the plaintiff. If the supply was without any order as alleged by the defendant then why he took GST credit of the same. The defendant has admitted that he issued a cheque to the plaintiff and the burden was on the defendant to show that this cheque was issued as a blank security cheque. The defendant could not prove this fact. The plaintiff is entitled to interest as per MSME Act after quarterly rest and therefore, plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount.
7. Ld. Counsel for the defendant on the other hand argued that this court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit as no cause of action took place in jurisdiction of this court. The goods were supplied to the defendant at its office at Digitally signed AMIT by AMIT KUMAR Page No.4 of 11 KUMAR Date: 2025.05.19 16:02:23 +0530 Shakarpur, Delhi which does not fall in jurisdiction of this court. There is no averment in the plaint that any single transaction took place in jurisdiction of this court. It was also stated that PMF was necessary party to this case as the plaintiff was super stockiest of PMF whereas defendant was a distributor and goods of PMF were supplied to the defendant and therefore, the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary party. PW-1 had no authority to file this case. On merits, it was argued that the defendant never ordered any goods directly to the plaintiff as admitted by PW1. All the orders on the plaintiff were placed by the employees of PMF for supplying goods to the defendant which were not as per requirement of the defendant. The defendant returned those goods through employees of PMF and there is no liability of defendant to pay the suit amount. The defendant has already cleared all his dues towards PMF as well as plaintiff. The defendant filed a criminal complaint against PMF and the plaintiff in 2018 before CMM, (East) Karkardooma Court Delhi and this suit has been filed as a counter blast to that criminal complaint and the suit is liability to be dismissed. Ld. Counsel for the defendant relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court passed in the case of "Harish Mansukhani vs. Ashok Jain in RFA 04/2008 dated 19.11.2008".
8. I have heard the submissions and have perused the record and my findings on the issues is as under:
ISSUE NO. (i) and (ii)
9. Both the issues are inter connected and are taken up together. The burden of proving issue no.(i) of supplying goods Digitally signed AMIT by AMIT KUMAR Page No.5 of 11 KUMAR Date: 2025.05.19 16:02:28 +0530 was on the plaintiff whereas of issue no.(ii) regarding cheque being security cheque was on the defendant. PW1 in his examination in chief proved on record the invoices raised upon the defendant as Ex.PW1/6(colly). The ledger was proved on record as Ex.PW1/5. In the cross examination the witness admitted that orders were placed by Mr. Anil Dubey and Mr. Bhaskar through Whatsapp on the plaintiff firm and thereafter, the goods were delivered to the distributor(s). The defendant never placed any order through Whatsapp, telephonic-ally and personally. In the entire cross examination of this witness, the invoices Ex.PW1/6 (colly) were not challenged. No dispute was raised that the goods mentioned in these invoices were not supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant.
9(a). The defendant in his cross examination admitted the invoices. He admitted his signatures on all the invoices except on page no.35 which is an invoice for Rs. 11,29,930/-. The denial of signature on this invoice is of no help to the defendant as in his own ledger account Ex.DW1/6, this invoice is duly reflected. The defendant as such admitted that the received goods from the plaintiff through these invoices. The sum total of all these invoices is Rs.48,78,804/-. This is the same amount as per statement of ledger account filed by the plaintiff Ex.PW1/5 and by the defendant Ex.DW1/6. When the defendant in his own ledger account Ex. DW1/6 has shown a balance of Rs. 20,49,632/- payable to the plaintiff then how can defendant claim that he never received goods worth this amount from the plaintiff. If the defendant claims that goods were returned to the plaintiff or PMF, the burden was on him to prove this fact.
Digitally
Page No.6 of 11
signed by
AMIT AMIT KUMAR
Date:
KUMAR 2025.05.19
16:02:32
+0530
10. As far as the point raised by Ld. Counsel for the defendant that he never placed any order on the plaintiff and goods were supplied without order is concerned, the admission of defendant in his cross examination that he took GST input credit of all invoices is sufficient to prove that goods were utilized by the defendant. Even if it is presumed that the defendant did not place any order on plaintiff, then why he utilized these goods by taking GST credit input has not been explained.
11. Further, DW1 in his cross examination claimed that he issued a debit note of this amount but this alleged debit note is not mentioned in the statement of account filed by the defendant Ex.DW1/6. The defendant claimed that this debit note was shown in the ledger statement of PMF but even this statement was not filed on record. Otherwise also debit note on PMF is of no help for goods supplied by plaintiff.
12. Another important aspect is the admission of the defendant that he took GST credit input of all the invoices raised by the plaintiff upon him. Once the defendant took the GST input of all the invoices worth Rs.48,78,804/-, the same proves that the goods were received and utilized by the defendant. If the goods were returned as alleged by the defendant then he should have reversed the GST input credit of those goods. He specifically admitted that he took GST input even of the material alleged to be returned to Mr. Bhaskar Sharma. The judgment relied by defendant of "Harish Mansukhani" (supra) is not applicable to facts of the present case as there are specific admissions by the defendant himself admitting supply of the material by plaintiff. In Digitally signed by AMIT AMIT KUMAR Page No.7 of 11 Date: KUMAR 2025.05.19 16:02:37 +0530 these circumstance, the plaintiff has proved issue no.(i) that goods worth Rs. 20,49,632/- were supplied to the defendant.
13. As far as issue no.(ii) in respect of issuing a blank security cheque by the defendant, the defendant has not lead any evidence on this aspect. The defendant claimed that this advance blank security cheque was taken by the plaintiff. The defendant did not examine any witness to prove the series of the cheque book as to when it was issued to the defendant by his bank to establish the probable date of handing over the cheque to the plaintiff. The defendant did not even produce the cheque book counter receipt on which the entries are made while issuing a cheques to establish the date when the same was handed over to the plaintiff. The defendant, therefore, has failed to prove that a blank security cheque was given to the plaintiff. Even otherwise if a blank negotiable instrument duly signed by the drawee is given to a person, the drawee gives the authority to that person to fill the same against the liability. The liability has been proved by the plaintiff in issue no.(i) and even if it is presumed that blank security cheque was given by the defendant, the defendant gave the authority to the plaintiff to fill the cheque to realize the liability. Issue no.(ii) therefore is decided against the defendant.
ISSUE NO. (iii)
14. The burden of proving this issue was on the plaintiff. The principal liability of Rs.20,49,632/- has already been proved by the plaintiff in issue no. (i). The statement of ledger as Ex.DW1/6 as maintained by the defendant in regular business course is exactly similar to the ledger account of the plaintiff Ex.PW1/5 Digitally signed AMIT KUMAR by AMIT Page No.8 of 11 KUMAR Date:
2025.05.19 16:02:42 +0530 (Colly.). Both the ledger accounts show that an amount of Rs.20,49,632/- is outstanding against the defendant. The plaintiff has claimed interest on this principal amount @ 18% per annum for the pre institution period between 12.01.2018 to 12.10.2020 amounting to Rs.10,14,821/-. The suit has been filed for recovery of principal amount alongwith interest. The invoices Ex.PW1/6 do not contain any term and condition in respect of rate of interest. The plaintiff did not prove that it is registered under MSMED Act. The rate of interest claim at 18% per annum is on much higher side even for commercial transaction. Therefore, being commercial transactions between the parties, the plaintiff shall be entitled to interest at the prevailing banking rates which are 9% per annum for commercial purpose/transaction. The plaintiff shall be entitled to the interest @ 9% p.a. only and not 18% per annum on the principal due of Rs.20,49,632/- from 12.01.2018 till 12.10.2020. Issue no. (iii) is accordingly decided.
ISSUE NO.(iv):
15. As far as issue no. (iv) in respect of interest is concerned, the plaintiff has claimed the interest at 18% per annum. In view of my finding already given on issue no. (iii), the plaintiff shall be entitled to pendentelite and future interest @ 9% p.a. only and not 18% per annum on the principal due of Rs.20,49,632/- from the date of the suit till realization. Issue no. (iv) is accordingly decided.
16. Ld counsel for the defendant has also raised two technical issues in respect of non joinder of necessary party namely PMF and territorial jurisdiction. As far as territorial aspect is Digitally signed Page No.9 of 11 AMIT by AMIT KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.05.19 16:02:46 +0530 concerned, the invoices show that the goods were supplied from the office/ godown of the plaintiff which falls in jurisdiction of this court, so part of cause of action as contemplated under section 20(c) of Code of Civil Procedure arose in jurisdiction of this court. The same is sufficient too hold that this court has jurisdiction.
17. Coming to argument of non joinder of parties, the plaintiff is super stockiest of PMF whereas defendant was distributor of PMF. Defendant procured goods from the plaintiff as per invoices and not from PMF. Defendant maintained separate ledger for plaintiff Ex.DW1/6 and made payments directly to plaintiff for goods received from plaintiff as per written statement. Only because both the parties of this case were related to PMF for their respective business, the same does not make PMF a necessary party. The defendant could have summoned PMF as a witness if deemed necessary. No such step was taken to summon record or witness from PMF claimed to be necessary party. So suit is not bad for non joinder of necessary party.
18. Further plaintiff has also proved that it a duly registered partnership firm. So suit is not barred under section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act. Ex. PW1/2 is the Form A issued by registrar of firms. It proves that plaintiff is a registered partnership firm. Further, form C shows that initially there were four partners out of whom two retired on 31.07.2014 and only two partners namely Mr. Anil Kumar Arora (PW-1) and Ms. Anita Arora were left. Suit was filed by Mr. Anil Kumar Arora who was duly authorized by Ms. Anita Arora through Ex.PW1/4.
Digitally signed by AMIT AMIT KUMAR Page No.10 of 11KUMAR Date:
2025.05.19 16:02:52 +0530 Even if this authorization is general in nature but same is sufficient to authorize Mr. Anil Kumar Arora to file the case.
19. Section 12 A of the Commercial Court Act was also duly complied. As per the Non Starter Report, it was the defendant who did not consent for mediation.
RELIEF:
20. In view of my finding given on the above said issues, plaintiff shall be entitled, against the defendant, to a decree for a sum of Rs.20,49,632/- which is the principal outstanding amount. Plaintiff shall also be entitled to interest @ 9% on the amount of Rs. 20,49,632/- from 12.01.2018 till realization.
21. Plaintiff shall also be entitled to the cost of the suit.
22. Copy of the judgment be sent to both the parties by electronic mode, if available or otherwise.
23. Decree sheet be prepared.
Digitally signed by AMIT24. File be consigned to Record Room. AMIT KUMAR Date:
KUMAR 2025.05.19
16:02:57
+0530
(AMIT KUMAR)
District Judge, Comm. Court-01
North, Rohini Courts
Delhi/19.05.2025
Page No.11 of 11