Delhi District Court
Graphic And Paper Products vs Rare International on 31 July, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. LAL SINGH,
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT-01),
SOUTH-EAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS (Comm) No. 54/2018
In the matter of:
Graphic and Paper Products
Through Vijay Kumar, Proprietor,
A-199, Ist Floor, Near Hotel Crown Plaza,
B/S Okhla Industrial Area Phase-1,
Delhi - 110020.
............Plaintiff
Versus
1. Rare International,
through Gaurav Jain, Partner,
R/o 183,C, W/13B, Western Avenue,
Sainik Farms, New Delhi.
Mobile - 9810301647
Also At:
Gaurav Jain, Partner,
Rare International,
Plot No. 595, Sector 37,
Pace City-Khandsa,
Gurgaon (Haryana) -122002
2. Sh. Deepak Mahajan, Partner,
Rare International,
Plot No. 595, Sector 37,
Pace City - Khandsa,
Gurgaon (Haryana) -122002
Mobile - 9999899441 .........Defendants
Date of institution : 28.11.2018
Date of reserving judgment : 24.07.2023
Date of judgment : 31.07.2023
CS (Comm) No. 54/2018
Graphic and Paper Products Vs. Rare International & Anr. Page 1 of 20
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 3,25,955/- along with pendent lite future interest @ 9% per annum.
2. It is stated that the plaintiff Graphic and Paper Products is doing the printing business of garments accessories such as labels, tags, stickers etc. and being represented by Sh. Vijay Kumar, proprietor of Graphic and Paper Products.
3. It is averred that the defendants M/s. Rare International, a registered partnership firm through Sh. Gaurav Jain and Sh. Deepak Mahajan, as partners, have been doing business with the plaintiff firm since 2016 and both the defendants used to place orders for purchase and printing of garments accessories such as labels, tags, stickers etc. from September 2016 to June 2018 and the plaintiff has supplied all these materials as per purchase order/specifications and subsequently raised the invoices from time to time for the materials supplied to the defendants. The plaintiff averred that as per the accounts of defendants maintained by the plaintiff in its running books of account in the ordinary course of business for the period from September 2016 to 31.03.2017, the plaintiff has delivered the aforesaid goods/materials as per the invoices for a total amount of Rs. 14,81,201/- and towards the said due amount, the defendants made part payment of Rs.5,93,201/- by cash/cheques on various dates and the balance at that time was Rs.8,88,000/-. It is further stated that on the assurance of the defendants of clearing of all the debts soon, the plaintiff continued the CS (Comm) No. 54/2018 Graphic and Paper Products Vs. Rare International & Anr. Page 2 of 20 delivery of the materials.
4. It is also averred by the plaintiff that for the financial year 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018, further the aforesaid material were supplied to the defendants as per the invoices for a sum of Rs.11,77,458/- and after adding the previous year's dues of Rs.8,88,000/-, total amount comes to Rs.20,65,458/-. It is further averred that towards the said due amount of Rs.20,65,458/-, the defendants made the part payment of Rs.9,61,252/- through cheque/cash on various dates and the balance amount due and payable by the defendants as on 31.03.2018 was Rs.11,04,206/-. It is stated that from 01.04.2018 to 06.06.2018, goods and materials were further supplied to the defendants for an amount of Rs.9,969/- and defendants have not made any payment during this period and as such the total amount due till 06.06.2018 amounts to Rs.11,14,175/-. It is further averred by the plaintiff that towards part payment of aforesaid amount of Rs.11,14,175/-, the defendant no.1 had issued 16 cheques of Rs.50,000/- each totaling Rs.8,00,000/- in the month of May, June and July 2018 and since these cheques were bounced, the plaintiff has served notice dated 08.08.2018 U/s 138 NI Act and initiated separate proceedings against the defendants u/s 138 of NI Act, which is pending adjudication before the concerned Ld. MM, Saket Courts vide CC/1497 titled as Graphic and Paper Products Vs. Rare International. It is also stated that the defendant no.1 and 2 further assured that they would also clear the balance amount of Rs.3,14,175/- shortly, but despite assurances, the balance amount of Rs.3,14,175/- was not been paid by the defendants and as such defendants are liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum which amounts CS (Comm) No. 54/2018 Graphic and Paper Products Vs. Rare International & Anr. Page 3 of 20 to Rs.11,780/- and thus sum total comes to Rs.3,25,955/-. As per the plaintiff, the plaintiff has also served a legal notice dated 07.09.2018 on the defendants. Thus, the plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.3,25,955/- along with pendent lite and future interest @ 9% per annum.
5. Both the defendants duly served and filed joint written statement. In the written statement, defendants have taken several preliminary objections stating therein that the present suit has been filed on the basis of false and frivolous grounds for extorting money from the defendants and hence liable to be dismissed. In the written statement, it is also contended that the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties as defendant Deepak Mahajan is not a Partner anymore and Sh. Mukesh Singhla is also one of the Partners of defendant no.1 who has not been impleded in the array of parties. It is also stated that the suit is not maintainable because defendant no.1 is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff because a settlement was arrived at between the parties and plaintiff had agreed to accept Rs.8,00,000/- against the bills raised by him in favour of the defendant no.1, after deducting the amount of debit note issued by defendant no.1 against the plaintiff. It is also contended in the written statement that a settlement was agreed between the parties, therefore 16 cheques of Rs.50,000/- each was issued by defendant no.1 in favour of the plaintiff with the assurance to present the same twice in a month after consulting with the defendant no.1 but the plaintiff presented all the said cheques together which resulted into bouncing of the cheques. It is stated that however, cheque bearing no. 863152 for a sum of CS (Comm) No. 54/2018 Graphic and Paper Products Vs. Rare International & Anr. Page 4 of 20 Rs50,000/- drawn on Deutsche Bank was honoured in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant no.1 contended that the said agreement was an oral agreement.
On reply on merits also, defendants partly denied the contentions of the plaintiff as raised in the plaint and stated that earlier Sh. Deepak Mahajan was also one of the partner of the firm. Further Sh. Mukesh Singhla who was also one of the partner of defendant no.1 firm, has not been impleaded as necessary party. The defendants also submitted that defendants placed purchase order for purchase and printing of garments accessories such as label, tags, stickers etc from September 2016 to June 2018, which was supplied by the plaintiff as per purchase order / specification and defendant is also maintaining the books of account and the defendant no.1 has already settled his account with the plaintiff. In its written statement, defendants stated that defendant no.1 had issued 16 cheques of Rs.50,000/- each totaling Rs.8 lacs in favour of the plaintiff in the year 2018. It is also stated by the defendants that it was agreed between the plaintiff and the defendants that plaintiff should present two cheques in one month but the plaintiff with malafide intention presented all the cheques together without knowledge of the defendant no.1, hence it was not got cleared by the bankers of the defendant no.1. However, cheque bearing no. 863152 for a sum Rs.50,000/- drawn at Deutsche Bank was got cleared by the defendant no.1. In its written statement, defendants also specifically denied that defendant no.1 had further assured to the plaintiff that he would also clear the balance amount of Rs.3,14,175/-. It is submitted by the defendants that a debit note for the amount has CS (Comm) No. 54/2018 Graphic and Paper Products Vs. Rare International & Anr. Page 5 of 20 already been issued by defendant no.1 to the plaintiff which was duly received by the plaintiff and hence, question of giving any assurance to pay any balance amount does not arise. Defendants also denied that the defendants are liable to pay any principal amount of Rs.3,14,175/- or any interest thereupon to the plaintiff.
6. The plaintiff has filed replication to the written statement of the defendants and in the replication, the plaintiff reiterated and reaffirmed the contents and averments of the plaint.
7. Thereafter, vide order dated 04.10.2019, before transfer of the case in this court, the concerned court framed the following issues :
1. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD's
2. Whether the plaintiff has agreed to accept Rs.8 lacs as a full and final settlement of the present case? OPD's
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of the suit amount as prayed for? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so, at what rate and for which period? OPP.
5. Relief.
8. Thereafter, plaintiff led the evidence and in its evidence, the plaintiff has examined PW1 Sh. Vijay Kumar, AR of the plaintiff who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex. PW1/1. In his evidence, PW1 also relied upon the documents vide Ex. PW1/2A to Ex. PW1/248.
PW1 was cross examined by ld counsel for the defendant. In his cross examination, PW1 admitted that in export line, CS (Comm) No. 54/2018 Graphic and Paper Products Vs. Rare International & Anr. Page 6 of 20 consignments are time bound and that what the material should be given to them for trim supply are time bound. In his cross examination, to a specific question put by the defendant, PW1 stated that it is nowhere mentioned in their agreement with the defendant that if any delay is caused on their part then they have to pay penalty for that. PW1 also admitted that the consignment has to be delivered time bound, however he stated that the consignment depends 10% upon them and 90% on other factors. PW1 deposed that he worked with the defendant from 2016 till 2018. In his cross examination, PW1 stated that he is not aware if he had placed or not on record, balance sheet for the year 2016-17. PW1 denied to the suggestion that they have not placed the balance sheet for the year 2016-2017 because the defendant had cleared all the payments for the said years. He stated that the statement of account is reflecting the outstanding amount. PW1 further denied to the suggestion that he has not placed documents on record because he has not mentioned the details of the defendant firm. PW1 deposed that the defendants are two partners. He also stated that he does not know whether Mukesh Singhla was one of the partner of the defendant firm. He also stated that he has no knowledge during the transactions from 2016 to 2018 that Mukesh Singhla was also one of the partner of the defendant firm.
In his cross examination, PW1 stated that the defendant firm has given him 16 cheques each for Rs.50,000/-, totaling to Rs.8,00,000/-. PW1 further deposed that he had not received any debit notes from the defendant firm during the course of the business and also not received any reminders from the defendant firm. PW1 denied CS (Comm) No. 54/2018 Graphic and Paper Products Vs. Rare International & Anr. Page 7 of 20 to the suggestion that he had filed the present suit just to extort from the defendant after settlement of account from the defendant firm.
9. Defendants also led the defendant's evidence and examined DW1 Sh. Gaurav Jain. DW1 Gaurav Jain has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex. DW1/A and in his evidence, he also relied upon the following documents :
1. Retirement and partnership deed vide Mark D1.
2. Debit and credit note dated 24.04.2017 vide Mark D2.
3. Debit and credit note dated 26.05.2017 vide Mark D3.
4. Debit and credit note dated 20.06.2017 vide Mark D4.
5. Debit and credit note dated 26.06.2027 vide Mark D5.
In his examination in chief, DW1 stated that his third partner was Mr. Mukesh Singhla, who handed over the original of Mark D2 to Mark D5 to the plaintiff before settlement and after going through the documents, matter was settled for a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-.
DW1 was cross examined by the ld counsel for the plaintiff. In his cross examination, DW1 admitted that no public notice was given for the retirement of the retiring partner but they had informed all the suppliers of the retirement of the partner. DW1 also admitted that no office copy of debit notes were filed before this court. He further admitted that no credit note was received by them against the said debit notes. DW1 also admitted that no bank statement has been filed by him, moreover, he was not aware of the bank statement as he did not used to deal with the suppliers. DW1 also admitted that the alleged debit note only amounts to Rs.1,52,832/- only and these debit notes contain only signatures of their employees. DW1 also stated that they CS (Comm) No. 54/2018 Graphic and Paper Products Vs. Rare International & Anr. Page 8 of 20 did not accept the goods against the debit notes. He also admitted that there is no signature / acknowledgment on these alleged debit notes. DW1 further deposed that reason being after the debit notes were issued, the settlement was done for Rs.8,00,000/- against which cheques were issued and the said settlement was done between Late Sh. Mukesh Singhla and Sh. Vijay.
10. Arguments of ld counsel for the plaintiff heard.
11. Ld counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the defendants had been dealing with the plaintiff since 2016 and both the defendants used to place orders for the purchase and printing of garments accessories such as labels, tags, stickers etc. He also argued that for the period September 2016 to 31.03.2017, plaintiff had supplied goods to the defendants as per the invoices for a total amount of Rs.14,81,201/- and towards the said amount, the defendants have made a part payment of Rs.5,93,201/- and the balance amount due and payable on 31.03.2017 was Rs.8,88,000/-. He also argued that the defendants have admitted that for the financial year 2017 - 2018, the plaintiff supplied goods to the defendants as per the invoices for a total amount of Rs.11,77,458/- and after adding the previous year's dues of Rs.8,88,000/-, the total amount due and payable by the defendants came to the tune of Rs.20,65,458/- and for the aforesaid due amount, the defendants have made part payment of Rs.9,61,252/- through cash / cheques on various dates and the balance payment due upon the defendants on 31.03.2018 came to Rs.11,04,206/-. It is also stated that thereafter from 01.04.2018 to 06.06.2018, plaintiff further supplied the goods to the defendants for an amount of Rs.9,969/- and thus, the total CS (Comm) No. 54/2018 Graphic and Paper Products Vs. Rare International & Anr. Page 9 of 20 came to the tune of Rs.11,14,175/- as on 06.06.2018. He also argued that towards part payment of the aforesaid amount, the defendants issued 16 cheques of Rs.50,000/- each to the plaintiff but the said 16 cheques got dishonoured and for which a separate criminal complaint is pending against the defendants before the concerned court of Ld MM, South East, Saket. He also submitted that the present case has been filed for the principal balance amount of Rs.3,14,175/-. He also submitted that there was no settlement taken place between the parties for a sum of Rs.8 lacs as alleged by the defendants. He also argued that the alleged retirement deed is not in accordance with the provisions of the Partnership Act. He submitted that the defendants are liable for the amount as claimed by the plaintiff in the present suit.
12. Despite several opportunities, defendants have not come forward for addressing the final argument. Therefore, argument heard on behalf of the plaintiff. Since the defendants filed the joint written statement and defendant also adduced evidence and examined DW1 and as such, the pleadings and evidence of the defendants shall be taken into consideration, while deciding the present case.
13. I have considered the submissions of ld counsel for the plaintiff and perused the pleading of the parties and gone through the evidence on record.
14. The issues wise findings are as under :
Issue No.1: Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for mis- joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? OPDs The onus to prove this issued is upon the defendants. In the written statement, defendants have taken preliminary objections CS (Comm) No. 54/2018 Graphic and Paper Products Vs. Rare International & Anr. Page 10 of 20 contending that the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. It is contended by the defendants in the written statement that defendant Sh. Deepak Mahajan is not a partner anymore and moreover, one Sh. Mukesh Singhla is also one of the partner of the defendant no.1, who has not been impleaded in the array of parties. It is also contended by the defendants that the suit is not maintainable as defendant no.1 is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff.
In his evidence, DW1 Sh. Gaurav Jain has relied upon the retirement and partnership deed Mark D1, showing that Sh. Deepak Mahajan has retired as a Partner. Perusal of the document Mark D1 shows that the retiring partner Sh. Deepak Mahajan has given notice to the continuing partners, of his desire to retire from the said partnership from the end of business day of 31.12.2017. However, as per the plaintiff, the transactions between the plaintiff and the defendants taken place from September 2016 to June 2018.
Ld. counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the retirement deed is not in accordance with the provisions of the Partnership Act, 1932 as the same is not registered and moreover, admittedly no public notice of the retirement was given by the defendants. DW1 Sh. Gaurav Jain in his cross examination categorically admitted that no public notice was given regarding the retirement of the retiring partner.
Section 32 of Partnership Act is reproduced as under :
Retirement of a partner :
(1) A partner may retire -
(a) with the consent of all the other partners,
(b) in accordance with an express agreement by the
CS (Comm) No. 54/2018
Graphic and Paper Products Vs. Rare International & Anr. Page 11 of 20
partners, or
(c) where the partnership is at will, by giving notice in
writing to all the other partners of his intention to retire.
(2) A retiring partner may be discharged from any liability to any third party for acts of the firm done before his retirement by an agreement made by him with such third party and the partners of the reconstituted firm, and such agreement may be implied by a course of dealing between such third party and the reconstituted firm after he had knowledge of the retirement. (3) Notwithstanding the retirement of a partner from a firm, he and the partners continue to be liable as partners to third parties for any act done by any of them which would have been an act of the firm if done before the retirement, until public notice is given of the retirement PROVIDED that a retired partner is not liable to any third party who deals with the firm without knowing that he was a partner. (4) Notices under sub-section (3) may be given by the retired partner or by any partner of the reconstituted firm.
Thus, it is amply clear that in view of the above provisions under Section 32 of Partnership Act, the retiring person was required to give public notice. Moreover, irrespective of retirement of a partner of a firm, the said retiring partner as well as other partners are liable to the third party for the acts done by them before the retirement of a partner. In the instant case, even as per document Mark D1 i.e. retirement and partnership deed, Sh. Deepak Mahajan had desired to retire from the said partnership from the end of business day of 31.12.2017. In the present case, the transaction between the parties CS (Comm) No. 54/2018 Graphic and Paper Products Vs. Rare International & Anr. Page 12 of 20 were stated to be done from September 2016 to June 2018. In this case, admittedly no public notice was given by the retiring partner of his retirement. DW1 specifically admitted in his cross examination that no public notice was given of the retirement of retiring partner.
Further, Section 25 of Partnership Act is also reproduced as under :
Section 25 Liability of a partner for acts of the firm Every partner is liable, jointly with all the other partners and also severally, for all acts of the firm done while he is a partner.
Thus, it is amply clear that every partner is jointly and severally liable for the acts of the firm. Moreover, DW1 Gaurav Jain (partner of the defendant firm) in his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex.DW1/A categorically stated that the settlement was arrived between the parties and plaintiff had agreed to accept Rs.8 lacs against the bills raised by him (plaintiff) in favour of defendant no.1 or any of its partner after deducting amount of debit notes issued by DW1 against the plaintiff. Though the alleged settlement as claimed by the defendants was specifically denied by the plaintiff and said contention qua settlement if any, between the parties, will be dealt hereinafter while dealing with issue no.2. Therefore, considering all the facts and circumstances, there is no force in the contention of the defendants that the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties, particularly in view of the above observations. Thus, accordingly issued no.1 is decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff.CS (Comm) No. 54/2018 Graphic and Paper Products Vs. Rare International & Anr. Page 13 of 20
15. Issue No.2: Whether the plaintiff has agreed to accept Rs.8 lacs as a full and final settlement of the present case? OPD's The onus to prove this issue upon the defendants.
The defendants in their written statement contented that a settlement was arrived between the parties and plaintiff had agreed to accept Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lacs) against the bills raised by him in favour of the defendant no.1, after deducting amounts of debit notes issued by defendant no.1 and therefore, 16 cheques of Rs.50,000/- each were issued by defendant no.1 in favour of the plaintiff with the assurance to present the same twice in a month after consulting with the defendant no.1 but the plaintiff presented all the aforesaid cheques altogether which resulted in bouncing of the cheques. As per the defendants, however one cheque bearing no.863152 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- was honoured in favour of the plaintiff. It is also contended by the defendants that the defendants are only liable to pay Rs.8,00,000/- and not anymore. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for remaining outstanding amount of Rs.3,25,955/-, excluding the above said Rs.8,00,000/- for which the defendants have issued 16 cheques of Rs.50,000/- each.
DW1 Sh. Gaurav Jain in his cross examination stated that the settlement was done for Rs.8,00,000/- against which the cheques were issued and the said settlement was done between Late Sh. Mukesh Singhla and Sh. Vijay (proprietor of the plaintiff). However, the 16 cheques of Rs.50,000/- each, totaling to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/- also got dishonoured and for which the separate proceedings are stated to be CS (Comm) No. 54/2018 Graphic and Paper Products Vs. Rare International & Anr. Page 14 of 20 going on between the parties in the concerned N.I.Act court. Moreover, the defendants have not placed on record any document showing that the settlement was taken place for Rs.8,00,000/- between the parties. In the absence of any material document placed on record or failure of the defendants to lead any evidence regarding the alleged settlement, the contentions of the defendants that defendants have settled the matter with the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- is untenable. Otherwise also in the written statement, defendants had contended that an oral agreement was held between the parties and it was agreed between the parties that defendant no.1 is liable to pay only Rs.8 lacs. In his affidavit Ex. DW1/A also, DW1 reiterated the above oral settlement. However, only contending about alleged oral settlement by the defendants is not enough, particularly when the plaintiff categorically denied of entering any oral settlement / agreement with the defendants. The defendants were required to bring something material on record to establish the alleged oral agreement between the parties but the defendants failed to bring on record any material on this aspect. Therefore, this contention of the defendant that there was an oral agreement / settlement is also without any substance. Therefore, the defendants have failed to established that the plaintiff agreed to accept Rs.8 lacs as full and final settlement of the present case.
Thus, accordingly, issue no.2 is decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff.
16. Issue No.3: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of the suit amount as prayed for? OPP The onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff. It is the CS (Comm) No. 54/2018 Graphic and Paper Products Vs. Rare International & Anr. Page 15 of 20 case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff supplied the printing garment accessories such as labels, tags, stickers etc., from September 2016 to June 2018 to the defendants, on the purchase orders placed by the defendants. Plaintiff also stated that as per the accounts of the defendants as maintained by the plaintiff in its running books of account in ordinary course of business for the period September 2016 to 31.03.2017, the plaintiff has delivered the aforesaid goods / materials as per invoices for a total amount of Rs.14,81,201/- and towards the said amount, the defendants made part payment of Rs.5,93,201/- and the balance at that time was Rs.8,88,000/-. Thereafter, for the financial year 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018, the plaintiff further supplied the aforesaid material to the defendants as per the invoices for a sum of Rs.11,77,458/- and after adding the previous years dues of Rs.8,88,000/-, the total amount comes to Rs.20,65,458/-. As per the plaintiff, thereafter defendants made part payment of Rs.9,61,252/- and the balance amount due and payable by the defendants on 31.03.2018 was Rs.11,04,206/-. It is also stated by the plaintiff that from 01.04.2018 to 06.06.2018, further above said goods and material were supplied to the defendants for an amount of Rs.9,969/- and thus, total amount due and payable by the defendants till 06.06.2018 was to the tune of Rs.11,14,175/-.
As per the plaintiff, towards the part payment of the aforesaid amount of Rs.11,14,175, the defendant no.1 had issued 16 cheques of Rs.50,000/- each, totaling to Rs.8,00,000/-. It is admitted fact that the above said 16 cheques, of Rs.50,000/- each was issued by the defendant no.1 to the plaintiff, as this fact has also been mentioned CS (Comm) No. 54/2018 Graphic and Paper Products Vs. Rare International & Anr. Page 16 of 20 in the written statement as well as evidence of the defendants. However, it is the contention of the defendants that a settlement was agreed between the parties, therefore, 16 cheques of Rs.50,000/- each was issued by defendant no.1 to the plaintiff with the assurance to present the same twice in a month after consulting with defendant no.1 but the plaintiff presented all the cheques altogether which resulted in bouncing of cheques. Defendants in written statement also contended that the cheque bearing no. 863152 for a sum Rs.50,0000/- was honoured in favour of the plaintiff. However, ld. counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the said cheque bearing no. 863152 was also got dishonoured. Perusal of cheque bearing no. 863152 dated 18.06.2018, which is part of documents Ex. PW1/245 (colly) shows that the said cheque bearing no. 863152 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- was also returned unpaid for the reasons funds insufficient. Thus, all the above said 16 cheques were dishonoured. As per the plaintiff, the plaintiff has filed separate case against the defendants qua bouncing / dishonouring of above said 16 cheques, in the concerned N.I.Act court. As per the defendants, the above said 16 cheques were issued by the defendant no.1 to the plaintiff in lieu of the settlement arrived at between the parties. However, the plaintiff has disputed this contention of alleged settlement between the parties. The defendants have failed to show that the above said cheques were issued to the plaintiff as there was settlement between the parties. Moreover, while dealing with issue no.2, it is already held that defendants failed to prove that the above said cheques were given after arriving settlement between the parties qua the outstanding balance to be paid by the defendants to the CS (Comm) No. 54/2018 Graphic and Paper Products Vs. Rare International & Anr. Page 17 of 20 plaintiff.
The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of remaining amount of Rs.3,25,955/-, excluding the above said amount of Rs.8 lacs for which 16 cheques of Rs.50,000/- each were issued by the defendants. So as to prove its case, the plaintiff has examined PW1 Sh. Vijay Kumar who has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex. PW1/1 and also relied upon the documents Ex.PW1/2A to Ex.PW1/248. Perusal of books of account / ledger account, for the financial year 2017-2018 vide Ex. PW2/234 (colly) shows outstanding closing balance as Rs.11,04,206/-. Further, vide books of account / ledger account for the period 01.04.2018 to 31.03.2019 vide Ex.PW1/239 shows the outstanding amount of Rs.11,14,175/-. As earlier discussed above, the present suit is for the remaining amount of Rs.3,25,995/-, excluding the cheque amount of Rs.8 lacs. As per the plaintiff, defendant is liable to pay interest on the principal amount of Rs.3,14,175/- @9% per annum w.e.f 06.06.2018 to 05.09.2018 and that comes to Rs.11,780/- and thus total amount comes to Rs.3,25,955/-. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for the said remaining amount against the defendants.
It is the contention of the defendants that the settlement was arrived between the parties and the plaintiff agreed to accept Rs. 8 Lacs against the bills raised by him, after deducting the debit notes issued by the defendants. In his cross examination, DW1 admitted that the alleged debit note was only to the amount of Rs.1,52,832/- and no credit note was received by them against the said debit note. DW1 also admitted that these debit notes contains only signatures of their CS (Comm) No. 54/2018 Graphic and Paper Products Vs. Rare International & Anr. Page 18 of 20 employees. DW1 further admitted that there is no signature /acknowledgment of the plaintiff on the alleged debit notes. As such the defendants failed to prove the debit notes mark D-2 to D-5. Thus, the said alleged debit notes could not be established by the defendants and same is of no help to the defendants.
From the perusal of ledger account Ex. PW1/239 (colly), the outstanding closing balance as on 31.03.2019 is shown as Rs.11,14,175/- and after deducting the 16 cheques amount of Rs.50,000/- each, totaling Rs.8 lacs, balance comes to Rs.3,14,175/- and after adding interest of Rs.11,780/-, on the said amount of Rs.3,14,175/-, the total comes to Rs.3,25,955/-. The present suit has been filed for the recovery of Rs.3,25,955/-. As such the plaintiff has successfully established the case against the defendants for the recovery of Rs.3,25,955/-.
Thus, accordingly, issue no. 3 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
17. Issue No.4: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so, at what rate and for which period? OPP.
The plaintiff company has claimed the pendente lite and future interest @9% per annum. However, having regard to the circumstances that the claimed rate of interest @ 9% per annum appears to be on higher side, hence, this court is of the considered view that the interest @7% per annum would be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
18. RELIEF.
In view of the findings on above said issues, the suit has CS (Comm) No. 54/2018 Graphic and Paper Products Vs. Rare International & Anr. Page 19 of 20 been decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Accordingly, the present suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.3,25,955/- (Rupees Three Lacs Twenty Five Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Five Only) along with interest @7% per annum from the defendants from the date of filing of the present suit till realization of the amount. Plaintiff shall also be entitled to cost of Rs.15,000/- which includes court fees, advocate fees and other litigation charges. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signedLAL by LAL SINGH Date:
SINGH 2023.07.31 16:05:46 +0530 Announced in Open Court (LAL SINGH) on 31.07.2023 District Judge (Commercial Court-01) South East/Saket Courts, New Delhi IR CS (Comm) No. 54/2018 Graphic and Paper Products Vs. Rare International & Anr. Page 20 of 20