Delhi District Court
M/S. Imv India Private Limited vs Mr. Umesh Bhardwaj on 21 September, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SHIRISH AGGARWAL, CIVIL JUDGE-01 /
CENTRAL, DELHI
SUIT NO: 1442/06
M/s. IMV India Private Limited,
Having its registered office at 573,
3rd Floor, Chirag Delhi-110017
Through its Authorised representatives
Sh. Vivek Arora ......................Plaintiff
VERSUS
Mr. Umesh Bhardwaj, prop.
M/s Vardhman Medical Systems,
L-90/164, 2nd Floor,
Street No.7,
Mahipalpur Extension,
New Delhi-110037 ...................Defendant
Date of Institution : 24.11.2006
Date on which Judgment reserved: 14.09.2012
Date of Pronouncing Judgment : 21.09.2012
Suit For Recovery Of Rs. 1,02,918/-
JUDGMENT
1. By this judgment, I shall dispose off the suit for recovery of Rs. 1,02,918/-.
2. The relevant facts as pleaded in the plaint are that the plaintiff is a company registered under the Companies Act and having its registered office at IMV Pvt. Ltd vs Umesh Bhardwaj Page No:1/7 Suit No: 1442/06 2 573, 3rd Floor, Chirag Delhi-110017. The plaintiff has authorised Sh. Vivek Arora to file and pursue the present suit and plaint vide its resolution dated 19.10.2006.
3. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff is carrying on the business of dealing in IVF and Embryo transfer products and the defendant had been dealing with the plaintiff for the purchase of the same.
4. It is further pleaded that the defendant has been carrying on the business for the purchase and sale of pharmaceutical products and during the course of his business he had been placing orders with the plaintiff. The defendant had been placing orders with the plaintiff at its registered office and the plaintiff has been supplying the goods to the defendant at its Delhi office.
5. It is further pleaded that the defendant had been placing orders for the purchase of IVF and Embryo transfer products with the plaintiff from time to time and the plaintiff had been supplying the same to the defendant as per his requirements and orders placed with the plaintiff.
6. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff had been maintaining the running account of the defendant transaction and as on 01.04.2004 there was a debit balance of the defendant firm to the tune of Rs. 1,62,963/-.
7. It is further pleaded that after 01.04.2004, the defendant had placed orders and have made payments to the plaintiff and the the plaintiff has debited and credited the account of the defendant for the sales made and the payments received.
8. It is further pleaded that on 31.05.2005, there was debit balance in respect IMV Pvt. Ltd vs Umesh Bhardwaj Page No:2/7 Suit No: 1442/06 3 of the defendant firm to the tune of Rs. 1,60,556/- and the said amounts were overdue from the due date of payment. The plaintiff had sent many verbal and telephonic reminders to the defendant but the defendant have failed to clear the accounts.
9. It is further pleaded that after 31.05.2005, the defendant had made certain payments to the plaintiff and as on 31-01.206 there was a debit balance in respect of the defendant firm to the tune of Rs. 1,02,918/-.
10. It is further submitted that the cause of action arose on different dates when the plaintiff has been supplying the goods to the defendant and lastly on 2nd June 2004 when the last consignment of the goods were supplied to the defendant. The cause of action further arose on 19th June 2006 when the defendant has sent a written reminder to the defendant and the defendant failed to comply with the same. The cause of action lastly arose on 6th September 2006 when the legal notice was sent and the defendant had not made the payment.
11. The plaintiff has made the following prayer:
" a decree of Rs. 1,02,918/- be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant alongwith pendente-lite interest @ 24% p.a. Or any other orders (s) be passed which thus Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case".
13. It is pleaded by the defendant in his written statement that the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit. Thus the plaint is liable to be dismissed.
IMV Pvt. Ltd vs Umesh Bhardwaj Page No:3/7
Suit No: 1442/06
4
14. It is further pleaded by the defendant in his written statement that the present suit is not maintainable in the eyes of law.
15. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own acts, conducts, latches, acquiescence, commissions and omissions etc.
16. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff had not come with the clean hands in the Hon'ble court and has concealed the true and material facts from this Hon'ble Court. The true and material facts are that there is no outstanding amount against the defendant.
17. It is further pleaded that the present suit that the suit of the plaintiff is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties. Hence the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed on this sole ground. It is further pleaded that the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction.
18. It is further pleaded by the defendant that the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit and the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant is false, frivolous and vexatious. Hence, the same is liable to be dismissed with costs and the defendant is entitled to special costs under Section 35-A of CPC.
19. It is further pleaded that the Hon'ble Court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit.
20. Replication has been filed by the plaintiff in response to the written statement filed by the defendant. In the replication, contents of the written statement have been denied while contents of the plaint has been reaffirmed as true and correct.
IMV Pvt. Ltd vs Umesh Bhardwaj Page No:4/7
Suit No: 1442/06
5
ISSUES
21. Issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of the Court by the order dated 12.04.2006:
i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of Rs 1,02,918/- as prayed for? (OPP)
ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest, if so, at what rate and for what period as prayed? (OPP)
iii) Relief.
22. To prove his case, the plaintiff has not led any evidence. Though evidence by way of affidavit was filed, the same was not tendered despite several opportunities. On 02.01.2012, right of the plaintiff to lead evidence was closed.
23. On 01.09.2012, the right of the defendant to lead evidence was closed.
24. On 14.09.2012, the right of the parties to address final arguments was closed as no one come forward on behalf of the parties to address final arguments. Judgment was reserved.
25. The record is perused. The issue-wise findings are as under: ISSUE No. 1
"Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of Rs 1,02,918/- as prayed for ? (OPP)"
26. The onus to prove this issue is on the plaintiff. No evidence has been led by the plaintiff, to prove how he is entitled to recovery of the suit amount. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had been placing orders for the purchase of IVF and Embryo transfer products with the plaintiff from time to time IMV Pvt. Ltd vs Umesh Bhardwaj Page No:5/7 Suit No: 1442/06 6 and the plaintiff had been supplying the same to the defendant as per his requirements and orders placed with the plaintiff. It is further the case of the plaintiff that after 31.05.2005, the defendant had made certain payments to the plaintiff and as on 31.01.2006, there was a debit balance in respect of the defendant firm to the tune of Rs. 1,02,918/-. Plaintiff has filed statement of accounts and copy of bills and debit notes of defendant company/firm.
It is the case of the defendant that the plaintiff has been supplying the goods from time to time and the defendant had been making payment regularly either in cash or cheques, whichever, demanded by the plaintiff. It is further the case of the defendant is that the supply of the tissual culture media and IVF and Embryo products was contaminated and the defendant had returned the entire contaminated material to the plaintiff and the amount of the same was deducted by the plaintiff with promise that they would refund the same to the defendant. It is further the case of the defendant that one Parvee Pondarattil contacted the defendant with sole authority to decide and settle the disputed amount and in that meting he assured that all the disputes are settled and nothing is remained against the defendant. It is further the case of the defendant that the entire payment was made by the defendant vide receipt dated 21.09.2005 for Rs. 40,000/- by cheque and of Rs. 20,000/- in cash and after that full and final settlement of Rs. 4,781/- was made by the defendant on 09.01.2006 and since then nothing is outstanding against the defendant.
There are no admissions made by the defendant which would entitle the IMV Pvt. Ltd vs Umesh Bhardwaj Page No:6/7 Suit No: 1442/06 7 plaintiff to the relief that has been prayed. Therefore, this issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
ISSUE No. 2
"Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest, if so, at what rate and for what period as prayed? (OPP)"
27. The onus to prove this issue is on the plaintiff. No evidence has been led by the plaintiff, to prove how he is entitled for interest. As issue no.1 has been decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff, this issue is also decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant. ISSUE No.3 - Relief
28. In view of the above mentioned discussion, the plaintiff is not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed by him. The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
(ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT) (SHIRISH AGGARWAL)
ON 21st Of September 2012 CIVIL/JUDGE/CENTRAL-01
ALL PAGES SIGNED DELHI
IMV Pvt. Ltd vs Umesh Bhardwaj Page No:7/7
Suit No: 1442/06
8
IMV Pvt. Ltd vs Umesh Bhardwaj Page No:8/7
Suit No: 1442/06