Delhi District Court
Ms Bsn Medical P.Ltd vs Robin Singh on 18 October, 2025
DLND010004802013
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE- 01,
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,
NEW DELHI
Presided over by :- SH. DHARMENDER RANA (DHJS)
CS No. 56599/16
M/s. BSN Medical Pvt. Ltd.
C&F Twinkle Pharma
K. no. 136/2, V&PO Badli,
Delhi-110042
......... Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Robin Singh
WZ-272, Lajwanti Garden,
Gali No.10, New Delhi-110046
........ Defendant
Suit presented On : 30.10.2013
Arguments Concluded On : 10.10.2025
Judgment Pronounced On : 18.10.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed a suit under Order XXXVII CPC for recovery of Rs.6,15,912/- alongwith pendente lite and future interest against the defendant. However, subsequently, vide order dated 12.10.2015, unconditional leave to defend was granted to the defendant CS 56599/16 M/S BSN Medical P. Ltd vs. Robin Singh page no. 1 of 17 by this Court.
PLAINTIFF'S CASE
2. The brief facts of the case are stated as under:-
2.1 It is averred that the plaintiff is a private limited company engaged in the business of sale & supply of medicines etc. It is averred that the defendant approached the plaintiff company for purchase of various medicines and introduced himself as proprietor of M/s City Drugs Pvt. Ltd., Kalkaji, New Delhi. It is further averred that as per the requirement of the defendant, the plaintiff supplied the requisite medicines to the defendant vide various invoices/bills in the name of M/s City Drugs Pvt. Ltd., to the tune of Rs. 6,15,912/-. It is further averred that on receipt of the goods and after due satisfaction, the defendant issued a cheque bearing No. 030326 dated 20.04.2012 for Rs. 6,15,912/- in favour of the plaintiff but the same was dishonoured by the banker of the defendant due to insufficient funds. It is further averred that the plaintiff contacted the defendant and intimated him about the dishonour of the above cheque by issuing notice on 02.01.2013. It is averred that the defendant received the notice and approached the plaintiff and requested the plaintiff not to initiate any criminal action against him and assured that he shall make payment to the plaintiff at the earliest.
2.2 It is further averred that it was duly agreed between the defendant and the plaintiff that in case of default in payment within CS 56599/16 M/S BSN Medical P. Ltd vs. Robin Singh page no. 2 of 17 stipulated period, the plaintiff shall be entitled for interest @ 18% per annum. It is averred that the plaintiff approached the defendant on various occasions and requested the defendant to pay the amount but the defendant failed to clear the amount owed by him towards purchase of the medicines.
2.3 Having failed in his efforts to recover the abovesaid amount, the plaintiff has now filed the present suit seeking the following reliefs:
'1. Pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for sum of Rs. 6,15,912/-(Rupees Six Lac Fifteen Thousand Nine Hundred Twelve Only).
2. Pass a decree for pendent-lite and future interest @18% per annum from the date of institution of the present suit till the date of realization.
3. Pass a decree directing the defendant to pay the cost of the present suit.'
3. Summons of the suit was served upon the defendant and vide order dated 12.10.2015, he was granted unconditional leave to defend.
WRITTEN STATEMENT
4. The defendant has contested the claim of the plaintiff by filing a detailed written statement. It is averred that the present suit is liable to be dismissed as the same is instituted with mala fide intention and is false, frivolous, misconceived and baseless besides being unsustainable CS 56599/16 M/S BSN Medical P. Ltd vs. Robin Singh page no. 3 of 17 in the eyes of law. It is further averred that the defendant was an employee of the plaintiff company, appointed vide appointment letter dated 21.04.2011 at the post of 'Sales Executive' at Faridabad. It is averred that after few days of the appointment of the defendant, Plaintiff Company asked the defendant to give a blank cheque so that the salary of the defendant could be deposited in the said account. Accordingly, on the instruction of the plaintiff company defendant issued a blank cheque bearing no 030326 of Indusind Bank Ltd., without signatures and any other particulars filled, to the plaintiff company for the purpose of depositing salary in the said account by the plaintiff. It is further averred that the plaintiff company has forged this very cheque by forging the particulars and signature of the defendant. It is averred that till 14.07.2012, when the defendant resigned from the services of the plaintiff company, defendant was posted at Faridabad. It is further averred that despite due dedication towards the service for the plaintiff company, the plaintiff company till date has not cleared the arrears of incentives and other benefits of the defendant, despite repeated requests. Thereafter, defendant has filed a complaint case bearing no 780/1 against the plaintiff for the forgery committed by the plaintiff. It is further averred that plaintiff has also filed similar suit against its erstwhile employee Abeer Gupta alleging similar facts. It is further averred that the present suit is not maintainable as there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. It is averred that the plaintiff has filed a false suit just to harass the defendant. It is further averred that exists no cause of action in favour CS 56599/16 M/S BSN Medical P. Ltd vs. Robin Singh page no. 4 of 17 of the plaintiff therefore; the suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. It is further averred that the plaintiff is liable to be prosecuted for perjury. It is averred that the suit is liable to be dismissed as plaintiff has not approached this Court with clean hands and has suppressed the true, relevant and the material facts from this Court. It is further submitted that when the defendant resigned from the plaintiff company, the plaintiff took the said cheque as a tool to harass, pressurize and victimize the answering defendant. It is averred that after resignation when defendant asked the plaintiff for return of his blank cheque, the plaintiff gave a false reply that they have destroyed the said cheque. It is averred that instead of destroying the cheque, plaintiff by forging the signature and particulars upon the blank cheque instituted the present false and frivolous civil suit to falsely implicate the defendant. It is averred that the defendant owes no liabilities towards the plaintiff, rather it is the plaintiff company, which is liable to remit the arrears of incentives and other benefits of the defendant. It is averred that so far as the alleged company M/s City Drugs Pvt Ltd., Kalkaji, New Delhi is concerned, it is submitted that the defendant has got no concern with the said company. It is further averred that the defendant was not responsible for collection of any payment on behalf of the plaintiff company. It is averred that the plaintiff misused the above said cheques, detained the arrears of incentive and other benefits of the defendant, only to create pressure upon the defendant as the defendant has resigned from the plaintiff company, while the plaintiff company had been getting beneficial CS 56599/16 M/S BSN Medical P. Ltd vs. Robin Singh page no. 5 of 17 services from the defendant. It is claimed that the defendant never purchased any medicines or other articles from Plaintiff. The defendant has accordingly prayed for dismissal of the suit.
REPLICATION
5. Pursuant to the written statement, a detailed replication has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff. In the replication, the plaintiff has admitted that defendant was an employee of the plaintiff company as a 'Sales Executive' at NCR, however, it is disputed that he was employed at Faridabad only. The plaintiff has improved upon its earlier version and has claimed that the defendant supplied the medicines to M/s Citi Drugs Pvt. Ltd. and collected the amount in cash from M/s. Citi Drugs Pvt. Ltd. and thereafter, misused the abovesaid amount. It is claimed that when the plaintiff came to know about the abovesaid bungling of funds it confronted the defendant whereupon the defendant furnished the abovementioned cheque duly signed and filled by the defendant himself. It is claimed that all the dealings of the plaintiff company with its customers were through its various sales representatives including the defendant, who used to receive orders and supply medicines and thereafter used to receive payments against the supplied medicines. It is averred that the defendant being a sales representative used to supply medicines and collected payment from the customers and in the instant case defendant misused the amount collected by the defendant. It is specifically averred that defendant purchased the medicines from the plaintiff, posing as proprietor of M/s. Citi Drugs CS 56599/16 M/S BSN Medical P. Ltd vs. Robin Singh page no. 6 of 17 Pvt. Ltd. It is claimed that the plaintiff company was having contacts with its customers only through its staff including the defendant. It is claimed that at the time of institution of the suit, the AR of the plaintiff company was not aware of the status of the defendant and they came to know about the complete picture from the written statement. It is claimed that the defendant provided the cheque in question to the plaintiff company to clear his pending dues against the payment collected from M/s. Citi Drugs Pvt. Ltd. The remaining averments in the written statement have been denied and disputed.
ISSUES
6. Upon completion of the pleadings, this Court framed the following issues in the instant matter vide order dated 21.03.2016:
i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of recovery of amount of Rs.6,15,912/-? OPP
ii) If the issue no. (i) is proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled of pendente lite and future interest @ if so, at what rate? OPP
iii) Relief PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
7. In order to substantiate its case, Sh. Ashok Kumar Bhandari (AR of the plaintiff company) has been examined as PW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A and has placed reliance on the following documents:
CS 56599/16M/S BSN Medical P. Ltd vs. Robin Singh page no. 7 of 17 Sr. No. Documents Exhibited as 1 Copy of memorandum and articles of Ex. PW-1/1 association of the plaintiff company 2 Copy of Board resolution Ex. PW-1/2 3 Copy of appointment letter dated 19.04.2011 Ex. PW-1/3 Also Mark A 4 Photocopy of joining report duly signed by the Ex. PW-1/4 defendant Also Mark B 5 Invoice No.DEL/TTT2/CHI/00357 dated Ex. PW-1/5 18.10.2011 for Rs. 6,15,993/- Also Mark C 6 Original Cheque no. 030326 dated 20.04.2012 Ex. PW-1/6 of Rs.6,15,912/-
7 Certified copy of order and joint statement Ex. PW-1/7 8 Original return memo Ex. PW-1/8 9 Copy of legal notice dated 02.01.2013 Ex. PW-1/9 10 Original postal receipts Ex. PW-1/10 11 Original plaint Ex. PW-1/D1 (exhibited during cross-
examination) 12 Amended plaint Ex. PW-1/D2 (exhibited during cross-
examination) DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
8. Defendant in the present matter examined himself as DW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. DW-1/A and also relied upon the following documents:
CS 56599/16M/S BSN Medical P. Ltd vs. Robin Singh page no. 8 of 17 Sr. No. Document Exhibited as 1 Letter dated 18.05.2011 issued by BSN Ex. DW-1/1 Medical Pvt. Ltd 2 Printout of e-mail dated 14.07.2012 at Ex. DW-1/2 11.33 AM 3 Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Ex. DW-1/3 Evidence Act 4 Copy of complaint to SHO dated Mark A 18.01.2014 5 Copy of complaint to DCP dated Mark B 17.01.2014 6 Copy of complaint under Section 200 Mark C Cr.P.C.
7 Copy of notice dated 08.01.2013 Mark D 8 Copy of suit under Order XXXVII CPC Mark E titled as M/s. BSN Medical Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sh. Abeer Gupta 9 Copy of written statement filed on behalf Mark F of the defendant 10 Copy of statement of PW-1 Sh. A.K. Mark G Bhandari dated 29.03.2014 FINAL ARGUMETNS
9. The Court has heard the arguments advanced by Sh. D.K. Pende and Sh. R.K. Sharma, Ld. Counsels for the plaintiff and Sh. S.N. Shukla, Ld. Counsel for the defendant and gone through documents available on record. My issuwise findings are here as under:
ISSUEWISE FINDINGS CS 56599/16 M/S BSN Medical P. Ltd vs. Robin Singh page no. 9 of 17
10. ISSUE NO.1 :
i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree fo recovery of amount of Rs.6,15,912/-? OPP 10.1 Claim of the plaintiff is based upon dishonoured cheque ( EX PW-1/6), claimed to have been issued by the defendant against medicines supplied by the plaintiff to M/s Citi Drugs Pvt Ltd., Kalkaji, New Delhi. On the other side, defendant claims that the said cheque was procured from him on the pretext of issuance of salary.
10.2 At the outset, I have no hesitation in observing that there are various inconsistencies in the version of both the plaintiff and the defendant and neither of the parties seems to be revealing the true picture before the court. For the sake of convenience, let us deal with the version of the defendant first and thereafter we shall deal with the version of the plaintiff.
10.3 Now let us deal with the claim of the defendant. It is inexplicable as to why instead of furnishing a cancelled cheque or providing a photocopy of the cheque, defendant opted to provide the original cheque to the plaintiff. Further, the cheque was not dishonoured on account of any instructions issued by the defendant to his bankers to stop the payment rather it came to be dishonoured on the ground of "insufficient funds". Inscrutable indolence on the part of the defendant upon receipt of legal notice (Ex PW-1/9) also raises grave suspicion CS 56599/16 M/S BSN Medical P. Ltd vs. Robin Singh page no. 10 of 17 against the claim of the defendant that he issued the impugned cheque on the asking of the plaintiff for issuance of salary. The cross- examination of the defendant clinches the issue when he categorically claims that he had submitted the documents regarding his education qualifications and copy of cheque'. Therefore, the claim of the defendant that the impugned cheque was furnished by him for release of his salary stands thoroughly discredited.
However, merely because the defendant is not trust worthy on certain aspects would not disentitle him from exposing the mendacity of the plaintiff's case. The presumption U/S 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are rebuttable in nature. Section 118 lays down a special rule of evidence applicable to negotiable instruments. The presumption is one of law and thereunder a Court shall presume inter alia that the negotiable instrument or the endorsement was made or endorsed for consideration. In effect, it throws the burden of proof of failure of consideration on the maker of the note or the endorser, as the case may be. The phrase "burden of proof" has two meanings. One, the burden of proof as a matter of law and pleading and the other burden of establishing a case;the former is fixed as a question of law on the basis of the pleadings and in unchanged during the entire trial, whereas the later is not constant but shifts as soon as a party adduces sufficient evidence to raise a presumption in favour. The evidence required to shift the burden need not necessarily be direct evidence i.e. oral or documentary evidence or admissible made by opposite party, it may comprise circumstantial CS 56599/16 M/S BSN Medical P. Ltd vs. Robin Singh page no. 11 of 17 evidence or presumption of law or fact. A plaintiff who says that he had sold certain goods to the defendant and that a promissory note was executed as consideration for the goods and that he is in possession of the relevant account books to show that he was in possession of the goods sold and that the sale was effected for a particular consideration should produce the said account books. If such a relevant evidence is withheld by the plaintiff, Section 14 of Evidence Act enables the court to draw a presumption to the effect that, if produced, the said accounts would be unfavourable to the plaintiff. This presumption, if raised by Court, can under certain circumstances rebut the presumption of law raised under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act(Kundan v. Custodian, Evacuee property, AIR 1961 SC 1316).
10.4 In the case at hand, there are various inconsistencies in the plaintiff's version with respect to the consideration of the impugned cheque ( Ex PW-1/6).
In the plaint, the plaintiff has claimed that in the usual course of the business transaction, the defendant approached the plaintiff for the purchase of various medicines and introduced himself as proprietor of M/s Citi Drugs P. Ltd. Kalkaji, New Delhi. It is claimed that the plaintiff accordingly supplied the requisite medicines as per the requirements of the defendant, vide various invoices/ bills in the name of the M/s Citi Drugs P. Ltd. Kalkaji, New Delhi to the tune of Rs. 6,15,912/-. It is claimed that defendant issued and handed over the impugned cheque (Ex PW-1/6) against above said medicines.
In the replication, plaintiff has claimed that the defendant was CS 56599/16 M/S BSN Medical P. Ltd vs. Robin Singh page no. 12 of 17 employed by the plaintiff company as Sale Representative and during the course of his employment, defendant supplied the medicines to M/s Citi Drugs P. Ltd. Kalkaji, New Delhi. and collected the amount in cash from M/s Citi Drugs P. Ltd. Kalkaji, New Delhi and thereafter misappropriated the amount collected by him from M/s Citi Drugs P. Ltd. on behalf of the plaintiff's company. On being confronted, the defendant issued the impugned cheque. Thereafter, again in the succeeding paragraphs of the replication. Thereafter in the succeeding paragraph no.3 of replication, it is once again claimed that the defendant has purchased the medicines from the plaintiff's company posing himself as proprietor of M/s Citi Drugs P. Ltd. Again in succeeding paragraph no.4 of replication on merits, plaintiff has once again claimed that the defendant obtained the orders from M/s Citi Drugs P. Ltd. and thereafter supplied the medicines to M/s Citi Drugs P. Ltd. and collected the payment on behalf of the plaintiff's company. The claim regarding the supply of medicines to M/s Citi Drugs P. Ltd. by the plaintiff's company and collection of payment by the defendant in cash is once again reiterated in paragraph no.8 of the replication. The plaintiff's claim is evidently mired in confusion and there is no clarity regarding the supply of medicines to the defendant as the proprietor of M/s Citi Drugs P. Ltd. as an independent customer or the collection of the cash payment by the defendant from the said client on behalf of the plaintiff company. The confusion deepens and is further shrouded in suspicion when we examine the testimony of Sh. Ashok Kumar; AR of the plaintiff (PW-1). Counsel for the plaintiff has attempted to explain CS 56599/16 M/S BSN Medical P. Ltd vs. Robin Singh page no. 13 of 17 the quandary claiming that since the company was operating through the vide network of employees, therefore, at the time of institution of the suit, the complete facts were not known to the plaintiff's company. It is claimed that when the defendant filed his written statement, the plaintiff came to know about the complete picture and everything was clarified in the replication.
However, the attempted explanation looses its sheen in light of categorical admission of PW-1, when during the course of cross- examination on 05.04.2018, he claims that the real facts emerged that the defendant was their employee when the cheque was dishonoured. The cheque was dishonoured vide return memo dated 24.04.2012 (Ex PW-1/8), much prior to institution of the suit. Therefore, it is inexplicable as to why the plaintiff has opted not to iron out the creases and left the issue mired in confusion and suspicion.
Not only that the claim of the plaintiff suffers from other gaping holes. The plaintiff claims that the medicines were supplied to the defendant vide various invoices/bills in the name of M/s Citi Drugs P. Ltd. Kalkaji, New Delhi. The use of words 'various invoices/bills' suggests that the medicines were supplied against numerous bills/invoices. However, the plaintiff has not only failed to file the requisite purchase orders, invoices/bills even no transportation record has been filed by the plaintiff. Instead of filing the requisite documents, viz., original bills etc., the plaintiff has placed on record the photocopy of a single Tax Invoice dated 18.10.2011 (Mark C), which evidently was de-exhibited upon the objections of the defendant. The CS 56599/16 M/S BSN Medical P. Ltd vs. Robin Singh page no. 14 of 17 failure of plaintiff to file original invoices raises question mark upon the credibility of the plaintiff's claim. Further, Sh. Ashok Kumar (PW-1) in his cross-examination on 03.12.2019 (internal page no. 3/9 of the cross-examination), in response to the question regarding his source of knowledge with respect to the collection of cash amount from M/s Citi Durgs Pvt. Ltd. claims that vide email dated 25.04.2012 (Mark-C) ( At this stage, Mark C1 by the court in order to avoid any confusion with the copy of Tax Invoice placed by the plaintiff, which was also Mark C) he was informed by Mr. Aveer Gupta. However, perusal of the document (Mark C1) would reveal that Sh. Aveer Gupta has claimed that with respect to the outstanding against the parties, including M/s Citi Drugs, he had submitted 'his personal cheque'. With respect to the outstanding payment of Rs.6,15,912/- qua M/s Citi Drugs P. Ltd. Mr. Aveer Gupta has further claimed that the outstanding payment shall be collected by the client mentioned in the said email including M/s Citi Drugs P. Ltd. by 25 th May. The claim of Mr. Aveer Gupta that the outstanding payment from M/s Citi Drugs P. Ltd. shall be collected by 25th May on 25.04.2012 vide email (Mark C1) and the claim of the plaintiff that the defendant had already collected the payment in cash from M/s Citi Drugs P. Ltd. and accordingly issued the impugned cheque (Ex PW-1/6) dated 20.04.2012 certainly calls for an explanation. The said email in these circumstances certainly could not have been a source of information for PW-1 that the defendant had collected the payment in cash from M/s Citi Drugs P. Ltd. Still further, the sole witness examined on behalf of the plaintiff company CS 56599/16 M/S BSN Medical P. Ltd vs. Robin Singh page no. 15 of 17 i.e. Sh Ashok Kumar (PW-1) has categorically testified in his cross- examination on 03.12.2019 (internal page no. 6/9 of the cross- examination) that he is not aware of the facts of the present case that presently and all his information is based on information provided to him by the plaintiff company. Thus the very competence of the plaintiff's witness to testify regarding the impugned transactions comes under a scanner of doubt. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Manisha Mahendra Gala & Ors. vs. Shalini Bhagwan Avatramani & Ors. In Civil Appeal No.9642 of 2010 decided on 10.04.2024 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:
'29. It is, therefore, settled in law that Power of Attorney holder can only depose about the facts within his personal knowledge and not about those facts which are not within his knowledge or are within the personal knowledge of the person who he represents or about the facts that may have transpired much before he entered the scene.' 10.5 Once the witness himself claims that he is not having any personal knowledge of the facts of the case, he obviously cannot testify regarding the material transactions. Once the testimony of PW-1 is discarded there is no evidence, leave aside credible one, to prove the claim of the plaintiff. Once the very foundation of the plaintiff's claims erodes nothing survives and the entire edifice comes crumbling down.
10.6 Considering the totality of the circumstances, the claim of the plaintiff cannot be said to be credible and convincing. The defendant has successfully discharged the onus placed upon him by pointing out CS 56599/16 M/S BSN Medical P. Ltd vs. Robin Singh page no. 16 of 17 the gaping holes in the plaintiff's version. Though it can not be said that certainty that how come the impugned cheque came in hands of the plaintiff company but it can be certainly observed that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the impugned cheque was issued for any valid consideration by the defendant.
Resultantly, the issue is decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO.2
ii) If the issue no. (i) is proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled of pendente lite and future interest @ if so, at what rate? OPP
11. In wake of my above findings upon issue no. 1, issue no.2 is also decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
12. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid discussions, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. Ordered accordingly. Parties to bear their own costs.
13. Decree sheet be prepared, accordingly.
14. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Digitally signed by DHARMENDER DHARMENDER RANA
RANA Date: 2025.10.18 17:30:33
+0530
Pronounced in open Court (Dharmender Rana)
on 18.10.2025 District Judge-01,
New Delhi District
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi
CS 56599/16
M/S BSN Medical P. Ltd vs. Robin Singh page no. 17 of 17