Delhi District Court
M/S J.B. Texmach & Spares Pvt. Ltd vs M/S Classic Industries on 3 June, 2022
M/S J.B. TEXMACH & SPARES PVT. LTD. v. M/S CLASSIC INDUSTRIES AND ANR.
IN THE COURT OF VIJAY KUMAR JHA,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE02, KARKARDOOMA
COURTS(EAST), DELHI
Civil Suit No.364/2020
In the matter of:
M/S J.B. Texmach & Spares Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Director
Sh. Kapil Jain
103, Triveni Complex,
First Floor, E1012,
Jawahar Park, Laxmi Nagar,
Delhi 110092.
..........Plaintiff
Versus
1. M/s Classic Industries
Through its proprietor
2. Ms. Parul Jain
W/o Sh. Anuj Jain
3. Mr. Anuj Jain
S/o Sh. Ashok Jain
All at C28, FIE Patparganj,
New Delhi - 110092.
............Defendants
Date of Institution : 22.04.2013
Date of Arguments : 09.03.2022
Date of Judgment : 03.06.2022
Suit for recovery and damages
JUDGMENT
1. It is averred that the plaintiff is a private limited company and the suit CS No.364/2020 PAGE NO. 1/ 17 M/S J.B. TEXMACH & SPARES PVT. LTD. v. M/S CLASSIC INDUSTRIES AND ANR.
has been filed through Shri Kapil Jain, the director of the plaintiff's company. The plaintiff company is engaged in the business of textile machinery, etc. import trading in India and earns a commission out of trading/marketing activity by importing specific machinery/equipment for its various clients. That the father of the director of the plaintiff's company namely Shri Kapil Jain was well known from previous two decades with the father of the defendant no. 3 and other than business relations with the families of the directors of plaintiff's company and that of the defendant no. 3 was also socially well acquainted.
2. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant no. 2 and 3 both represented to be legally engaged and concerned with affairs of the defendant no. 1 and they wanted the plaintiff company to import aluminum foil of a particular quantity and quality and made a payment of ₹500,000/ as advance on 17/06/2011. The defendant no. 3 always held himself to be the representative and at the helm of affairs of the defendant no. 1 although the defendant no. 2/wife of the defendant no. 3 was/is the proprietor of the defendant no. 1 officially. The plaintiff company sourced the said aluminum foil from a supplier in China which was finally delivered to the defendants on 13/07/2011. For the goods supplied that is the aluminum foil 0.0065X91012350 (quantity 12,756 @ ₹260/ per KG) were delivered to the defendants and accordingly a bill of ₹3,482,388/ was raised which was to be cleared by the defendants as on 13/07/2011.
3. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the defendants kept on making part payments through Bank/cheques and by 01/06/2012 the defendants made a total payment of ₹2,266,500/ according to the invoice which CS No.364/2020 PAGE NO. 2/ 17 M/S J.B. TEXMACH & SPARES PVT. LTD. v. M/S CLASSIC INDUSTRIES AND ANR.
was raised by the plaintiff and interest @ 18% per annum was to be charged if the payment was not cleared within 15 days. Accordingly, as per the plaintiff, an amount of ₹1,215,888/ is outstanding towards the principal and ₹470,115/ as interest calculated at the rate of 18% per annum for the period 28/07/2011 to 31/03/2013.
4. As per the plaintiffs from the date of supply of the aluminum foil that is 13/07/2011 till 20/12/2012 from the sides of the defendants there had not been any letter of protest, notice, email, or any communication with respect to any deficiency or problem either with the quality or the quantity of the aluminum foil supplied by the plaintiff. The plaintiff came to know that the defendants had filed a manipulated return to the sales tax department claiming benefit of VAT for the bill of ₹3,482,388/ raised by the plaintiff showing the material as polythene packing material instead of aluminum foil.
5. The plaintiff company served a legal notice dated 15/12/2012 which was replied to vide reply dated 20/12/2012 in which the defendants allegedly raised the issue of substandard quality of the goods/rejection.
6. It is also the grievance of the plaintiff company that the defendants tried to malign the reputation of the plaintiff company because of which the plaintiff company suffered financial loss for which the plaintiff company is seeking the damages of ₹400,000/. Briefly, in aforesaid facts and circumstances, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit for a decree for the sum of ₹2,086,003/ along with pendentelite and future interest @ 18% per annum till realisation.
7. By way of preliminary objections in the written statement filed on behalf of the defendants, it is the claim of the defendants that the CS No.364/2020 PAGE NO. 3/ 17 M/S J.B. TEXMACH & SPARES PVT. LTD. v. M/S CLASSIC INDUSTRIES AND ANR.
plaintiffs have suppressed material facts as apart from the payments made through cheques, certain payments (details not given) in cash had also been made which have not been reflected in the ledger account maintained and filed by the plaintiff.
8. It is also alleged by the defendants that the materials which were supplied by the plaintiff were of substandard quality and said fact was brought to the notice of the plaintiff and by mutual understanding; for the reason, that the elderly family members of the parties were in close acquaintance, the plaintiff agreed upon the request and a debit note was raised by the defendant nos. 1 and 2 and the said amount was debited in the ledger account.
9. It is also alleged that some goods were of very inferior/substandard quality and were of no use for the defendants and were still lying unutilized which were not lifted/removed by the plaintiff despite repeated verbal and telephonic request made to the plaintiff by the defendants from time to time.
10.As per the defendants, the plaintiff also concealed that the plaintiff had been dealing with the defendant no. 1 firm M/s. Classic Industries, through another sister concern of the plaintiff's company namely M/s. J.B. Impex which was looked after by the plaintiff and his brother.
11.It is the say of the defendants that defendant no. 1&2 had cleared the entire outstanding in the said firm (M/s. J.B. Impex?). The only dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant was with respect to one machine, that is, plastic zip extruder (BC45) worth about ₹425,000/ which was supplied by the sister concern of the plaintiff's firm to the company owned by the defendant no. 3 that is M/s. Sunpolybag Pvt.
CS No.364/2020 PAGE NO. 4/ 17M/S J.B. TEXMACH & SPARES PVT. LTD. v. M/S CLASSIC INDUSTRIES AND ANR.
Ltd. The said machine was supplied on 18/10/2011 after importing the same from China and the entire payment regarding it was made by defendant no. 3 from his own company Sunpolybag Pvt. Apart from the said machine, the dies to be used for the proper functioning of the said machines were also procured from the plaintiff company from China, worth about ₹ 1,60,000/ i.e., four dies for ₹40,000/ each. However, as soon as the said machine was supplied, the said machine was not working properly and was having defect, as the same was to be used for packaging of Food Products/Namkeens/Packing of Garments, Hosiery and Nonwoven products. Due to nonfunctioning of the said machine, the defendant No. 3 was suffering huge losses and as such, the plaintiff, his brother, and his father had a meeting with the defendant No. 3 and it was mutually agreed between the parties, that the entire payment for the said machine worth about ₹4,25,000/ would be adjusted in the payment of M/s. Classic Industries and the defendants would make the balance payment.
12.As per the defendants, it was further agreed that the plaintiff would get the said machine Plastic Zip Extruder lifted from the premises of the defendant No. 3, as and when the plaintiff company got a suitable buyer for the said machine. The payment with respect to the dies was agreed to be borne by the defendant No. 3, which the defendant No. 3 had also agreed.
13. It is further pleaded in the written statement that the goods supplied by the plaintiff company also were not of very good quality, as the same was not having Barrier Property and the material was one side loose, which caused much problem in lamination. Further, there was Gauge CS No.364/2020 PAGE NO. 5/ 17 M/S J.B. TEXMACH & SPARES PVT. LTD. v. M/S CLASSIC INDUSTRIES AND ANR.
Variation, due to which the lamination done on the said goods was destroyed. The defendants No. 1 and 2 also suffered losses to the tune of about ₹15 Lacs, as the Polyster and Poly utilised by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for lamination upon the aluminum foil supplied by the plaintiff company had also been damaged and the same could not be used for any purpose and had been scrapped and lying with the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. However, keeping in view the healthy business relations and the close acquaintance between the families of both the parties, the defendants choose not to file any litigation against the plaintiff for the said losses.
14.It is the grievance of the defendants that despite the said fact, the plaintiff had back stabbed the defendants and in place of making good the losses suffered by the defendants, on account of Faulty Machine, inferior quality of goods and other losses caused to the defendants, the plaintiff filed the present false and fabricated suit against the defendants, in order to extort money from the defendants, despite the fact that the entire account has been settled and the defendants were ready and willing to pay the balance amount to the plaintiff.
15.It is further pleaded in the written statement that the parties to the suit were dealing with each other since long and defendant No. 3 had earlier also purchased machine from the plaintiff company M/s. J. B. Impex i.e., auto Loop Machine, which was running properly and only thereafter, the order for supply of Plastic Zip Extruder was placed upon the sister concern of the plaintiff, but the machine had not been working properly and the said amount had already been agreed to be adjusted in the bill raised by the plaintiff company.
CS No.364/2020 PAGE NO. 6/ 17M/S J.B. TEXMACH & SPARES PVT. LTD. v. M/S CLASSIC INDUSTRIES AND ANR.
16.It is one of the technical objections in the written statement that the suit filed by the plaintiff is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties, as the defendant no. 3 is neither necessary nor proper party in the present proceedings as the defendant no. 3 is not liable to make any payment to the plaintiff nor any relief has been sought against the defendant no. 3 in the present suit.
17.There is an admission in the written statement that after deducting all the above amounts, i.e., ₹4,25,000/ towards the Plastic Zip Extruder, ₹4,16,000/ towards defective goods and the payment of ₹2,60,000/ made in cash on different dates, the outstanding balance, as per the Ledger Account maintained by defendant nos. 1 and 2 in due course of business, comes to ₹1,14,888/, which the defendant nos. 1 and 2 are ready and willing to pay to the plaintiff, but the plaintiff is pressing hard to make the entire payment, which is not the legitimate dues of the plaintiff.
18.On merits, the facts averred by the defendants in the written statement is in consonance with the facts as stated by the defendants by way of preliminary objections.
19.The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of the defendants in which the plaintiff reiterated and reaffirmed the facts as stated by the plaintiff in the plaint and denied the material facts as stated by the defendant in their written statement.
20.The plaintiff denied having received any cash payments from the defendants. That with respect to the aluminum foil supplied till 20/12/2012 the defendants made no complaint, protest, or grievance regarding the quality of the goods supplied. That the story regarding CS No.364/2020 PAGE NO. 7/ 17 M/S J.B. TEXMACH & SPARES PVT. LTD. v. M/S CLASSIC INDUSTRIES AND ANR.
raising of the debit note is false and concocted. That the dealing of defendant(s) with M/s J. B. Impex (P) Ltd., a proprietorship concern of Nitin Jain and the present transaction which forms the basis of the present suit have no nexus, link on interrelation. That the issue of plastic zip extruder is also an afterthought as it did not find mention in the reply dated 20/12/2012 to the legal notice dated 15/12/2012. As per the plaintiff, M/s. J. B. Impex is an entity wherein brother of the director of the plaintiff company is the sole proprietor. The plaintiff admitted that the plaintiff company and the proprietorship concern of Nitin Jain is running from the same address. But also stated that it was only for the sake of a registered address and the works of M/s. J. B. Impex was run absolutely separate from Patparganj and later from Karawal Nagar, New Delhi on a rental premises.
21.It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the transaction between the plaintiff's company and the defendants is a separate legal entity (by which the plaintiff means the transactions between the plaintiffs and the defendant is different visàvis the transactions of the defendant no. 3 with the firm of the brother Shri Nitin Jain of the plaintiff, namely M/s. J. B. Impex). The plaintiff specifically denied that the plastic zip extruder purchased by the defendant no. 3 that too through a separate legal entity, M/s. Sun Polybags Pvt. Ltd from the proprietorship firm of Nitin Jain who is neither a party to the present suit nor has any concern with the present business transactions.
22.The plaintiff further denied that plaintiff (Director, Kapil Jain) or his father (Shri Nem Chand Jain) ever had a meeting with defendant no. 3 or ever agreed to adjust or give any credit of ₹425,000/ or as alleged by CS No.364/2020 PAGE NO. 8/ 17 M/S J.B. TEXMACH & SPARES PVT. LTD. v. M/S CLASSIC INDUSTRIES AND ANR.
the defendants. With respect to the quality of the aluminum foil supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant, it is averred in the replication that the defendants did not realise/noticed that goods supplied by the plaintiff were of inferior quality for a period of one and half years and rather kept on making payments in bits and parts until the defendants defaulted after 01/06/2012. The defendants never bothered to lift their pen in order to raise any question with respect to the quality of the material i.e., aluminum foil supplied by the plaintiff.
23.As per the plaintiff, the short question before the Court is whether the defendants made a cash payment of ₹260,000/ which is denied by the plaintiff; whether the plaintiff had ever agreed, adjusted, or asserted to any debit note or alleged return of ₹425,000/ and ₹416,000/ respectively. In sum and substance, the plaintiff in his application in para no. 5 a reply on preliminary objections has delineated the exact issues regarding which the adjudication by the Court is required in the present lis. In sum and substance, the plaintiff by way of replication has denied the material facts as stated by the defendants in the written statement.
24.After completion of the pleadings vide order dated 04/09/2014 the following issues were framed:
1. Whether the plaintiff company has supplied aluminum foil to the defendant no. 1 being run by defendant no. 2 and 3 to the funeral ₹3,482,388/as per invoice no. 001 dated 13/07/2011? OPP
2. Whether the defendants have made the payment in respect of supply of goods there being in balance of ₹114,888/only paper by defendants no. 1 and 2? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a principal sum of ₹1,215,888/ along with interest @ 18% per annum till date as stipulated in the invoice raised by the plaintiff company upon the defendants? OPP CS No.364/2020 PAGE NO. 9/ 17 M/S J.B. TEXMACH & SPARES PVT. LTD. v. M/S CLASSIC INDUSTRIES AND ANR.
4. Relief.
25.To prove the case on behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff company director Shri Kapil Jain has been examined as PW1. The examination inchief is by way of affidavit exhibited as Ex. PW1/A which is the copy of the averments in the plaint so much so that even the paragraphs regarding cause of action, jurisdiction and valuation of the suit have been copied in the affidavit. PW1 has relied upon and proved the following documents:
1. The memorandum of Articles of Association of the plaintiff company is Ex.PW1/A
2. The Board resolution is Ex.PW1/B.
3. A triplicate copy of invoice no.001 dated 13.07.2011 raised on defendant no.1 for Rs.34,82,388/ is Ex.PW1/C.
4. Invoice of M/s Chaudhary Transport Company cleared by cheque no.084698 drawn on ICICI Bank, Laxmi Nagar dated 23.08.2011 is Ex.PW1/D.
5. Ledger copy of principal and interest calculation sheet is Mark A.
26.On behalf of the defendants to defend the suit filed by the plaintiff, defendants examined Sh. Anuj Jain as DW1 and Ms. Parul Jain as DW
2. DW1 has relied upon the proved the following documents:
1. Copy of ledger account of defendant no.1 is Ex.DW1/1.
2. Copy of Bill no.00084, dated 18.10.2011 is Ex.DW1/2.
3. Copy of Bill no.009 dated 22.04.2011 is Ex.DW1/3.
4. Original debit note for Rs.4,25,000/ and Rs.4,16,000/ are Ex.DW1/4 & Ex.DW1/5.
5. Copy of ledger account of M/s Classic Industries is Ex.DW1/6.
6. Original cash voucher (16 nos) for Rs.2,60,000/ for the period w.e.f. 05.04.2012 to 29.05.2012 is Ex.DW1/7(colly).
27.I have heard the arguments and perused the record of the case. The issuewise opinion is hereby returned as under.
Issue no. 1 Whether the Plaintiff company has supplied CS No.364/2020 PAGE NO. 10/ 17 M/S J.B. TEXMACH & SPARES PVT. LTD. v. M/S CLASSIC INDUSTRIES AND ANR.
aluminum foil to Defendant no. 1 being run by Defendants no. 2 and 3 to the tune of Rs. 34,82,388/ as per invoice no. 001 dated 13.07.2011? OPP.
28. It is averred in paragraph no. 6 of the plaint, "That accordingly the plaintiff company had sourced the said aluminum foil from a supplier in China which was finally handled by Emirates Shipping Agencies (India) Pvt. Ltd. and transported through Sal Cargo & Logistics and delivered to the defendant on 13.07.2011. A copy of the invoice no. 001 dated 13.07.2011 is annexed herewith". The reply of the defendants to the corresponding paragraph 6 of reply on merits in the written statement is, "That the contents of the para under reply are matters of record, hence need no reply". In paragraph 8 of the plaint it is averred, "That be as it may the goods i.e., aluminum foil 0.0065x 91012350 (quantity12,756 @ Rs. 260 per kg) were delivered to the defendant(s) and accordingly a bill of Rs. 34,82,388/ was supposed to be cleared by the defendants as on 13.07.2011". The reply of the defendants to the corresponding paragraph 8 of the reply on merits in the written statement is, "That the contents of the para under reply are matters of record, hence need no reply. It is wrong and denied that the defendants were supposed to clear the bill amount as on 13.07.2011".
29.In the light of the averments in the plaint and the written statement, it is the admitted case of both the parties that the plaintiff company has supplied aluminum foil to the defendant no. 1 being run by defendant no. 2 and 3 to the tune of ₹3,482,388/ as per invoice no. 001 dated 13/07/2011. Accordingly issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue no. 2 Whether the defendants have made the payment in respect of supply of goods and there is balance of Rs. 1,14,888/ CS No.364/2020 PAGE NO. 11/ 17 M/S J.B. TEXMACH & SPARES PVT. LTD. v. M/S CLASSIC INDUSTRIES AND ANR.
only payable by defendants no. I and 2? OPD
30.The entire case of the plaintiff has been proved by the cross examination of the PW1 by giving the following suggestions on 05/02/2019, "It is wrong to suggest that out of the total principal amount of ₹1,215,888/, the following amount is adjusted i.e., ₹425,000/ towards the plastic zip extruder supplied by my brother, ₹416,000/ towards defective goods and ₹260,000/ paid in cash on different dates. It is wrong to suggest that only a sum of ₹140,888 is required to be paid by the defendants".
31.From the suggestions as given to PW1, it is the admitted case of the defendants that with respect to the transactions between the parties to the present litigation pertaining to aluminum foil and the amount of ₹3,482,388/ the principal amount due on the defendants was ₹1,215,888/.
32.The defendants did not examine the brother of PW1 namely Shri Nitin Jain. PW1 in his crossexamination denied every suggestion which was given with respect to Shri Nitin Jain which made it incumbent upon the defendants if not to implead Shri Nitin Jain in the present suit then at least examine Shri Nitin Jain in their defence. The nonexamination of Shri Nitin Jain is fatal so far as the defence of the defendants is concerned with respect to the supply of plastic zip extruder by the firm of Shri Nitin Jain or the adjustment of ₹425,000/ in that respect.
33.If the aluminum foil supplied by the plaintiff was defective. Then as per Section 42 of the Sale of Goods Act, when the aluminum foil was supplied to the defendants, the defendants had the right to examine it for the purpose of ascertaining whether the aluminum foil was in CS No.364/2020 PAGE NO. 12/ 17 M/S J.B. TEXMACH & SPARES PVT. LTD. v. M/S CLASSIC INDUSTRIES AND ANR.
conformity with the contract with the plaintiff. And, if the aluminum foil was not in conformity with the contract the defendants could have rejected the goods. However, as from the case of the defendants, it is very much apparent that the defendants have used, if not the entire aluminum foil which was supplied by the plaintiff; then at least a part of it, therefore in terms of Section 42 of the Sale of Goods Act, it would be deemed that the defendants have accepted the aluminum foil which was supplied by the plaintiff thereby incurring the liability to pay for the same; even if, it is assumed that the aluminum foil supplied by the plaintiff was defective or not in accordance with the agreed terms of contract between the plaintiff and the defendants.
34.In neither the written statement of the defendants nor the entire cross examination of PW1, there is reference to any dates when the defendants might have made the payment of ₹260,000/in cash to the plaintiffs.
35.The absence of mentioning of the dates when the defendants might have made the payment in cash to the plaintiff with respect to supplying of the aluminum foil in the written statement as well as by not putting even the suggestions to PW1 in his crossexamination raises a doubt as to the entire defence of the defendants having paid ₹260,000/ in cash to the plaintiffs.
36. From the suggestions given during crossexamination of PW1 on 11/10/2017 it appears that the cash payments might have been made to the employees of the plaintiff complaint namely Shri Ashwini and Shri Ramesh. PW1 deposed that PW1 did not know them and no evidence has been led on behalf of the defendants to prove first, Shri Ashwini CS No.364/2020 PAGE NO. 13/ 17 M/S J.B. TEXMACH & SPARES PVT. LTD. v. M/S CLASSIC INDUSTRIES AND ANR.
and Shri Ramesh exist, second that they were the employees of the plaintiff company, third if Shri Ashwini and Shri Ramesh were the employees of the plaintiff company then the defendants made the payment in cash to them; fourth, if the defendants made the payment in cash, then it has not been proved by the defendants on which date (through whom) and of how much amount the defendants made the payment in cash to them; fifth if the defendants made the payment in cash to Shri Ashwini and Shri Ramesh whether any receipt were taken by the defendants regarding the payment and if any receipt was taken by the defendants, then the defendants have not proved the signature on any such receipt.
37. The DW2 in her crossexamination with respect to Ex. DW1/ 7 (colly) has deposed, "Ex. DW1/7 is with respect to advance paid by me to uncle Ji Sh. Nem Chand in good faith. It is correct that Ex. DW1/7 (colly) does not bear either the signature of Sh. Nem Chand or stamp of plaintiff's company", which contradicts the deposition of DW1 on this aspect. DW2 has not even referred to any Ramesh or Ashwini.
38.On behalf of the defendants, the defendant Shri Anuj Jain has been examined as DW1. It is examinationinchief, Ex. DW1/A, DW1 has deposed, "...that apart from the payments made through cheques, certain payments in cash have also been made, which have not been reflected in the Ledger Account, maintained, and filed before the Hon'ble Court by the plaintiff with malafide intentions". As already stated herein above DW1 has not mentioned the dates when 'certain payments in cash' were made by the defendants to the plaintiff. Without making Shri Nitin Jain as the party in the suit are in the least examining CS No.364/2020 PAGE NO. 14/ 17 M/S J.B. TEXMACH & SPARES PVT. LTD. v. M/S CLASSIC INDUSTRIES AND ANR.
Shri Nitin Jain by the defendants all the depositions which DW1 has deposed with respect to Shri Nitin Jain is of no consequence especially when PW1 has denied all the suggestions made during the cross examination by the counsel for the defendants with respect to Shri Nitin Jain.
39.Because of the nonexamination of Shri Nitin Jain on the balance of probability, it cannot be held to be proved that amongst the plaintiffs and the defendants it was mutually agreed that the entire payment of ₹425,000/ with respect to plastic zip extruder machine was settled from the liability of the defendant is to pay for the aluminum foil which was supplied by the plaintiffs.
40.The entire deposition of DW1 or of that matter of DW2 as well, with respect to the quality of aluminum foil supplied being not good or there being some defects in the same or aluminum foil cannot be used in favour of the defendant for the diminution of the liability of the defendants in view of the provisions of Sale of Goods Act referred heinous above.
41.As for as the veracity of the debit note Ex DW1/5 in the sum of ₹416,000/ is concerned which as per the defendants raised because of the losses and damages suffered by the defendants for the alleged supply of defective aluminum foil, same is doubtful and has not been proved even on the balance of probability by the defendants.
42.Even the deposition of DW1 with respect to the alleged debit note, Ex. DW1/4 is not creditworthy same may be quoted as, "At this stage, witness is shown Ex. DWl/4 i.e. Alleged Debit Note of Rs. 4,25,000/. It is admitted the said Debit Note does not bear any signature, CS No.364/2020 PAGE NO. 15/ 17 M/S J.B. TEXMACH & SPARES PVT. LTD. v. M/S CLASSIC INDUSTRIES AND ANR.
acknowledgment by the plaintiff company or any of its alleged representatives. It is correct that I do not have any proof of ever having dispatched the said debit note to the plaintiff company as a confirmation of the same in our accounts. (vol. Nem Chand Uncle had orally told me that he will adjust this debit note in the supply of aluminum foil by the plaintiff company)".
43.The deposition of Ms. Parul Jain and the defendant no. 2 who has examined as DW2 in her examinationinchief; Ex. DW2/A which is on the lines of the deposition of DW1 is also not of much help in furthering the case of the defendants. The material depositions in Ex. DW2/A are almost like what has been deposed by PW1 in his examinationinchief; Ex. DW1/A.
44.In the light of discussion herein above not only the defendants are liable to pay the admitted amount of ₹144,000/ but the defendants are also liable to pay an amount ₹260,000/which the defendant is alleged to have paid in cash to the plaintiff but could not prove even on the balance of probability. The defendants are also liable to pay an amount ₹425,000/which as per the case of the defendants were settled with respect to defective zip extruder machine supplied by the brother of the plaintiff no. 2 namely Shri Nitin Jain. The issue is decided accordingly in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
Issue no. 3 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a principal sum of ₹1,215,888/along with interest @ 18% per annum delayed as stipulated in the invoice raised by the plaintiff company upon the defendants? OPP
45.In view of the opinion of the Court on issue no. 1 and 2 which have been decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants the CS No.364/2020 PAGE NO. 16/ 17 M/S J.B. TEXMACH & SPARES PVT. LTD. v. M/S CLASSIC INDUSTRIES AND ANR.
plaintiff shall be entitled to a principal sum of ₹1,215,888/against the defendants. In the crossexamination PW1 admitted, "It is correct that no interest was ever agreed upon to be paid by the defendants for the alleged delayed payments". In view of the categorical admission by the PW1 in his crossexamination, the plaintiff shall not be entitled to interest @ 18% per annum. However, as the plaintiffs have been deprived by the defendants of the suit amount therefore the plaintiff shall be entitled to a reasonable rate of interest on the principal amount due against the defendant. In the facts and circumstances of the case award of interest @ 7% per annum would meet the ends of justice. The issue under discussion is decided accordingly.
Relief
46. As the material issues have been decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed with costs. The plaintiff shall be entitled to the relief of a decree in the sum of ₹1,215,888/ along with pendentelite and future interest @ 7% per annum till the defendants make the actual payment.
47.Suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs.
48.Decree sheet be drawn in terms of the judgment. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance. Digitally signed VIJAY by VIJAY KUMAR JHA KUMAR Date:
2022.06.06 JHA 17:27:16 +0530 Announced in the open Court (VIJAY KUMAR JHA) on 3rd June, 2022. Addl. District Judge02(East) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.CS No.364/2020 PAGE NO. 17/ 17