Delhi District Court
Ms Deepika Sarees Pvt. Ltd vs Ms Meenakshi Sarees Pvt. Ltd on 25 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SACHIN SOOD,
DISTRICT JUDGE-01 ( CENTRAL), THC, DELHI.
CS No 16893/16
CNR No. DLCT 01- 002834-2014
1. M/s Deepika Sarees Private Ltd.
Through its director Sh Vibhor Aggarwal
Having office at 1009, Gali Ladey Wala,
Maliware, Nai Sarak, Chandni Chowk,
Delhi-110005.
2. Master Vatsal Aggarwal
S/o Sh Vibhor Aggarwal (next best friend)
R/o D-4, Model Town-II,
Delhi -110009. ...PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
1. M/s Meenakshi Sarees Private Ltd
Alias Meenakshi Saree Centre (P ) Ltd
Through its Authorized Directors/Principal
Office Bearers/Secretary
Having its registered office at
985-988, Bhojpura,
Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006.
2. Ms Mohini Aggarwal, Director of
M/s Meenakshi Sarees Private Ltd
W/o Late Sh Ashok Aggarwal
R/o 733/724, Mukherjee Nagar,
Meerut Sweet Wali Gali,
Opposite Batra Cinema, Delhi.
3. Ms Richa Aggarwal,Director of
M/s Meenakshi Sarees Private Ltd
W/o Late Sh Vineet Aggarwal
R/o 733/724, Mukherjee Nagar,
CS No 16893/2016 M/s Deepika Sarees P. Ltd Vs M/s Meenakshi Sarees P. Ltd Page No 1/31
Meerut Sweet Wali Gali,
Opposite Batra Cinema, Delhi
Both also at : 985-988, Bhojpura,
Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006. ...DEFENDANTS
Date of Institution : 17.12.2014.
Date of reserving judgment : 10.10.2025.
Date of judgment : 25.10.2025
JUDGEMENT
1. The present suit has been filed under Order XXXVII CPC for recovery of Rs. 28,47,000/- alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 12% per annum till realization in full with cost of the proceedings, pleadings inter alia as under :-
(i) That the plaintiff is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and has been engaged into wholesale trading/dealing in sarees etc., having registered office at 1009, Gali Ladey Wala, Maliwara, Nai Sarak, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 and that the present suit being signed, verified and instituted by one of its directors, namely Sh. Vibhor Aggarwal who has been duly authorized being its director and authorized by plaintiff company vide board resolution.
(ii) That defendant no. 1 is a company incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act, 1956 and is capable of being sued and that defendant no. 2 and 3 are the directors of defendant no. 1 company having its registered office at 985 to 988 Bhojpura, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006.
(iii) That defendant no. 1 company through Sh. Vineet Aggarwal who was managing director of defendant no. 1 company and son of defendant CS No 16893/2016 M/s Deepika Sarees P. Ltd Vs M/s Meenakshi Sarees P. Ltd Page No 2/31 no. 2 and husband of defendant no. 3 approached the plaintiff company for the purchase of sarees on credit basis for and on behalf of the defendant company.
(iv) That the request of Sh. Vineet Aggarwal for and on behalf of the defendants was accepted by the plaintiff company and the Plaintiff agreed to supply/sell sarees to defendant no. 1 company on short term credit terms.
(v) That agreeing on the request of Sh. Vineet Aggarwal for himself and on behalf of the defendant company, plaintiff company sold and supplied sarees from time to time to the defendant company vide invoices describing goods/rate etc. The invoices are as follows :-
Date Invoice No. Quantity Amount
09.04.2014 87 546 pcs. Rs. 5,33,625/-
12.04.2014 124 715 pcs. Rs. 6,66,375/-
(Rs. 12,00,000/-)
21.04.2014 232 725 pcs. Rs. 4,97,875/-
28.04.2014 299 182 pcs. Rs. 1,68,500/-
02.05.2014 337 368 pcs. Rs. 4,85,725/-
09.05.2014 389 291 pcs. Rs. 3,47,900/-
(Rs 15,00,000/-)
TOTAL (Rs. 27,00,000/-)
(vi) That the said goods as described hereinabove had been duly acknowledged having been received by defendants through Sh. Vineet Aggarwal and promised to pay the same within prescribed 30 days from the date of notice.
CS No 16893/2016 M/s Deepika Sarees P. Ltd Vs M/s Meenakshi Sarees P. Ltd Page No 3/31
(vii) That the defendants incurred a liability of Rs. 27,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs Only) in the said transaction. The defendants have been jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff, a principal sum of Rs. 27,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs Only) and the said amount was payable within a period of 15 days and not later than 30 days of the said transaction. Sh. Vineet Aggarwal promised and assured the said payment of principal sum within the stipulated period.
(viii) That defendants failed and neglected to pay the said outstanding principal amount and later on Mr. Vineet Aggarwal, Managing Director of defendant no.1 company approached the plaintiff and requested plaintiff to grant loan of the said amount which would incur interest @12% per annum. He further promised to liquidate the said amount within a short time and till such time, it would carry interest. The said proposal came through broker Mr. Mukul Bihari earlier also. Plaintiff agreed to treat the said outstanding amount as loan to the defendants. Mr. Vineet Aggarwal for and on behalf of defendants acknowledged the said liability in the sum of Rs.12 lacs and Rs.15 lacs vide receipt dated 30.05.2014 and 26.06.2014. A duly signed receipt has been handed over to the plaintiff. In order to secure the repayment of said amount, two post dated cheques in the sum of Rs.12 las Rs.15 lacs vide cheque no. 414228 and 565425 drawn on ING Vaysa Bank. Branch at Chandni Chowk, Dariba Kalan, Delhi were issued payable on 20.09.2014.
(ix) That defendant No.1 Company through Mr. Vineet Aggarwal failed to pay the outstanding dues to the Plaintiff No.1 Company. Mr. Vineet Aggarwal requested Plaintiff No.1 Company to treat the outstanding amount as loan payable to Plaintiff No.2 minor Master Vatsal Aggarwal son of Mr. Vibhor Aggarwal, Director of the Plaintiff Company. The said CS No 16893/2016 M/s Deepika Sarees P. Ltd Vs M/s Meenakshi Sarees P. Ltd Page No 4/31 amount of Rs. 12.00 lakhs and Rs. 15.00 lakhs was duly acknowledged by Mr. Vineet Aggarwal for and on behalf of his Company i.e. Defendant No.1 vide receipt dated 30.05.2014 and 26.06.2014, respectively. Thus, Defendants were liable to pay the said total amount of Rs.27.00 lakhs to minor Master Vatsal Aggarwal towards repayment of loan.
(x) That later on to secure said repayment Mr. Vineet Aggarwal for and on behalf of Defendant Company issued two cheques bearing No.414228 for Rs.12.00 lakhs and cheque bearing no.565425 for Rs.15.00 lakhs both drawn on ING Vysya Bank Ltd., Dariba Kalan, Delhi both dated 30.09.2014 in the name of Plaintiff No.1 company so that after realizing of said cheques, money would be paid to Plaintiff No.2 (minor). That the said cheques were issued in acknowledgment of the subsisting liability of total principal amount of Rs.27 Lacs and also in discharge of liability on the due date of said cheques
(xi) No amount has been paid on the due date as mentioned on the said cheques. The plaintiff has been requested to defer presentation of said cheques to enable them to make payment. Accordingly, the said cheques were not presented for encashment for some time.
(xii) That it is learnt that Sh. Vineet Aggarwal, Director of the Defendant Company has since expired on 25.09.2014. The Defendant Company have failed to keep up their commitment/promise and have failed to pay, inspite of waiting for sufficient time even after the demise of Sh. Vineet Aggarwal, no effort to liquidate the joint and severable liability has been made by the defendant company or its other authorized directors.
(xiii) That since the payment was not forthcoming and inspite of repeated promises, plaintiff company was compelled to deposit the said cheques CS No 16893/2016 M/s Deepika Sarees P. Ltd Vs M/s Meenakshi Sarees P. Ltd Page No 5/31 for realization on 03.11.2014. The said cheques were returned unpaid vide cheque returning memo dated 05.11.2014.
(xiv) That since Plaintiff No.1 could not realize value of said two cheques and the said cheques got dishonoured, Plaintiff No.1 Company filed legal proceedings in order to realize the dues.
(xv) Had Plaintiff No.1 realised the value of said cheques, amount would have been paid to Plaintiff No.2 since the minor has no capacity to contract in law, Plaintiff No. 1 decided to file legal proceedings as the cheques drawn in their favour. The entire exercise initiated by Plaintiff No. 1 Company, has been for the benefit of the minor in terms of said two receipts. Thus Plaintiff No.2/minor as aforementioned is entitled to recover the total sum of Rs.27.00 lakhs along with interest from the Defendants. In case of any legal ambiguity, on realization of said dues, Plaintiff No.1 Company would hold the same for the benefit of the minor / Plaintiff No.2 and the said amount would be kept in safe custody in the form of FDR for his benefit. Plaintiff No.1 company or its Director who is father of the minor / Plaintiff No.2 has no adverse interest against his minor son who is Plaintiff No.2 in the present suit." (xvi) That the Defendant no. 2 Smt. Mohini Aggarwal is one of the principal directors of the defendant company besides being the mother of Sh. Vineet Aggarwal since deceased. The Defendant no.3, Ms. Richa Aggarwal is the other principal director of the Defendant Company besides being the wife of Sh. Vineet Aggarwal since deceased. That as mentioned above, Sh. Vineet Aggarwal was one of the three directors of the defendant company since deceased. The Defendant no. 2 & 3 being the Principal Director of Accused Company are liable in their individual CS No 16893/2016 M/s Deepika Sarees P. Ltd Vs M/s Meenakshi Sarees P. Ltd Page No 6/31 capacity for the loan acknowledged to have been taken by the Defendant company through Late Sh. Vineet Aggarwal from the Plaintiff Company. (xvii) That in respect of dishonourment of said cheques, plaintiff company is initiating proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. A prescribed notice of demand to initiate such proceedings vide notice dated 12.11.2014 has already been issued and inspite of said notice, no payment is made by defendants to the plaintiff. Reply dated 27.11.2014 has been received evasively disputing the said liabilities.
(xviii) That the present suit is being filed under summary procedure in terms of Order XXXVII Code of Civil Procedure consisting of the principal amount of Rs. 27,00,000/- (Twenty Seven Lacs only) and Rs. 1,30,000/- (One Lacs and Thirty Thousand only) being interest @ 12% p.a. on the principal amount for the period upto the filing of the present suit. The present suit is maintainable under summary procedure as the principal amount has been acknowledged by the Defendant Company to have been given as a loan by the Plaintiff company to the defendant company in terms of the receipt dated 30.05.2014 and 26.06.2014 besides the cheque no. 414228 and 565425 dated 20.09.2014 issued by them. It is submitted that the present suit is maintainable under Order XXXVII CPC and as it consists of an acknowledged principal amount, leave to defend can only be granted to the Defendant Company depositing the entire amount claimed by way of the present suit with the Hon'ble Court. (xix) That the cause of action for filing the present complaint arose when plaintiff was approached by Sh. Vineet Aggarwal S/o Late Sh. Ashok Aggarwal r/o 733/734, Mukherjee Nagar, Meerut Sweet Wali Gali. Opposite Batra Cinema, Delhi who is the son of Defendant no.2 and CS No 16893/2016 M/s Deepika Sarees P. Ltd Vs M/s Meenakshi Sarees P. Ltd Page No 7/31 husband of Defendant no.3 for the purchase of Sarees on credit basis for and on behalf of the Defendant Company. He represented himself to be one of the directors of M/s Meenakshi Sarees Private Ltd., being the defendant company. The cause of action for filing the present suit further arose when the defendant company incurred a liability of Rs. 27,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs Only) in the said transaction and the said amount being payable within a period of 15 days of the transaction. The cause of action further arose when Sh. Vineet Aggarwal acting on behalf of the defendant company, thereafter vide receipt dated 30.05.2014 acknowledged to have incurred a liability and/or received a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- (Twelve Lakhs Only) and vide receipt dated 26.06.2014 a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs Only) as a loan/cash deposit from the Plaintiff company at an interest rate of 1 % per month. The cause of action further arose when on behalf of the Defendant company, Sh. Vineet Aggarwal also issued cheques no. 414228 and 565425 dated 20.09.2014 drawn on the current account of the defendant company ING Vysya Bank Chann Chowk branch at 1893, Opp. Dariba Kalan, Delhi- 110006 respectively, under his signatures as an authorized signatory of the defendant company in favour of the plaintiff, in discharge of liability or by way of security for payment of said outstanding amount. The cause of action further arose when the aforesaid two cheques were presented for payment by the plaintiff company at their bank on 03.11.2014 and the said cheque were returned unpaid vide cheque dishonour memo dated 05.11.2014 bearing remark "kindly drawer/drawee bank". Finally the cause of action arose when the Defendant no. 1, 2 & 3 were served with notice dated 12.11.2014 sent via Speed Post A.D on 13.11.2014 calling upon them to pay a sum of Rs. 28,30,000/- (Twenty Eight Lacs and CS No 16893/2016 M/s Deepika Sarees P. Ltd Vs M/s Meenakshi Sarees P. Ltd Page No 8/31 Thirty Thousand only) within a period of 7 days of receipt of the notice to the Plaintiff Company on account of loan taken by the Defendant Company acknowledged via receipt dated 30.05.2014 and 26.06.2014. Hence, the present suit.
(xx) That the defendant company and its directors alongwith the plaintiff company are all based in Chandni Chowk, Delhi and thus the Hon'ble court has the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present suit being filed under Order XXXVII CPC.
(xxi) That the present suit is being valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction at Rs. 28,47,000/- Twenty Eight Lacs forty seven thousand only) on which ad valorem court fee of Rs. 30,250/- (Thirty thousand two hundred fifty only). The Plaintiff Company undertakes to pay additional court fee on the pendent-lite and future interest @ 12% p.a. if awarded by the Hon'ble Court at the time of final adjudication. The plaintiff prayed for following reliefs which are as under :-
(a) a joint and several decree for the recovery of Rs.28,47,000/- (Rupees twenty eight lacs forty seven thousand only) under Order XXXVII CPC may kindly be passed in favour of the Plaintiff Company and against the Defendant Company and its Directors being Defendant No.2 & 3; in alternative, a joint and several decree may kindly be passed in the sum of Rs.28,47,000/- (Rupees twenty eight lacs forty seven thousand only) in favour of the Plaintiff No.2 and against the Defendants;
(b) pendent-lite and future interest @ 12% per annum on the principal amount till the date of realization may kindly be awarded;
(c) cost of the suit be also awarded in favour of the plaintiff company and against the defendant company and its directors and CS No 16893/2016 M/s Deepika Sarees P. Ltd Vs M/s Meenakshi Sarees P. Ltd Page No 9/31
(d) pass such other/further order(s) as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
WRITTEN STATEMENT
2. Initially the suit was filed under the provisions of Order XXXVII CPC.
The defendants consequent upon the grant of the unconditional leave to defend vide order dt 17.01.2017 filed their written statement which consequent upon the amendment of the plaint too was amended. The defendants have denied each and every allegation as levelled by the plaintiff pleadings inter alia as under :-
(i) That the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that the same is based on false and concocted story cooked up by the plaintiff and that the defendants have no liability of whatsoever kind towards the plaintiff either jointly or severally.
(ii) That the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground for mis-joinder of parties. It is submitted that the Plaintiffs has arrayed the Defendant No. 2 and 3, in their capacity of Directors of the Defendant No. 1 Company. It is further submitted that the defendant no.
1 being a private limited company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 is a separate legal entity from its Directors and as such the Directors of Defendant No. 1, i.e., the Defendant No. 2 and 3, cannot be held liable for any alleged outstanding dues, if any, of Defendant No. 1. It is submitted that there is no averment against the Defendant No. 2 and 3 in the suit or the summons for judgement, which may make the Defendants necessary parties, No. 2 and 3.
(iii) That the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that the plaintiff no. 2 has been added in the array of parties as an CS No 16893/2016 M/s Deepika Sarees P. Ltd Vs M/s Meenakshi Sarees P. Ltd Page No 10/31 after thought and with a view to brush up the lacunas in the false and frivolous story cooked up by the plaintiffs.
(iv) That the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed qua the defendant no. 3 in as much as the Defendant No. 3 was inducted as a director with the Defendant No. 1 Company only on 22.09.2014 i.e. much later than the date of issue of alleged six invoices, alleged receipts and alleged cheques. Under the aforesaid circumstances, it is submitted that arraying of Defendant No. 3 as party to the suit has been done without application of mind, but only to exert undue pressure on the Defendants.
(iv) That the suit of plaintiff is liable to dismissed on the sole ground that the same is based upon alleged invoices which are computer generated printouts and are not duly supported by the affidavit as required under the mandate of Section 65B Evidence Act.
(v) That the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to dismissed on the sole ground that the same is based upon false and fabricated invoices and alleged receipts which have nothing to do with the answering defendants and as such the answering defendants cannot be held liable for the same either jointly or severally.
(vi) That the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that the plaintiffs are trying to combine two separate causes of action i.e. firstly the amount outstanding towards the purchase of goods as alleged by the plaintiffs and secondly with regard to the amount outstanding towards the alleged loan amount been given by the plaintiff no. 2 as cash deposit.
(vii) That the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the two alleged receipts dated 30.05.2014 and 26.06.2014 are forged CS No 16893/2016 M/s Deepika Sarees P. Ltd Vs M/s Meenakshi Sarees P. Ltd Page No 11/31 and fabricated in as much as the contents of the same are not in consonance with the alleged purchases made by the deceased Late Sh. Vineet Aggarwal. That it is further submitted that the alleged receipts dated 30.05.2014 and 26.06.2014 nowhere states that the said receipts have been issued in lieu of the purchases made by the above named deceased as alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint and upon bare perusal of the said alleged receipts an inference could not be drawn even in the wildest stretch of imagination that the said receipts have been drawn in lieu of the payment outstanding towards the alleged invoices.
(vii) That the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the same is based upon false and fabricated invoices and alleged receipts which have nothing to do with the answering defendants and as such the answering defendants cannot be held liable for the same either jointly or severally.
(viii) That the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the alleged receipts dated 30.05.2014 and 26.06.2014 are forged and fabricated in as much as the contents of the same are not in consonance with the alleged purchases made by the deceased Late Sh. Vineet Aggarwal and that the alleged aforesaid receipts nowhere states that the said receipts have been issued in lieu of the purchases made by the above named deceased as alleged by the plaintiffs.
(ix) That the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed on the ground that there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and also that as on the date of issuance of the alleged receipts, the said plaintiff no. 2 was a minor aged around 6 years and again it cannot be inferred in the wildest stretch of imagination either in law or CS No 16893/2016 M/s Deepika Sarees P. Ltd Vs M/s Meenakshi Sarees P. Ltd Page No 12/31 fact that a minor can grant a cash deposit of Rs. 27 Lacs or that a minor can accept a receipt in lieu of the same.
(viii) That the plaintiffs have failed to supply any ledger account of the defendant company or any relevant books of account wherein the defendant has been shown as the debtors in the books of plaintiff's company and mere filing of false and fabricated invoices do not hold water.
(ix) That Late Sh. Vineet Aggarwal had never executed the alleged receipts for and on behalf of defendant no. 1 and that the records of defendant no. 1 establishes that Late Sh. Vineet Aggarwal was never authorized to issue the alleged receipts or the alleged cheques in favour of the plaintiff and also that Late Sh. Vineet Aggarwal had never issued cheques no. 414228 or 565425 in favour of the plaintiffs in discharge of any alleged liability or by the way of security on be half of the defendant no. 1.
(x) That the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that soon after the death of Sh. Vineet Aggarwal various unknown persons started exerting threats upon the defendant no. 2 with regard to personal loan transactions with Late Sh. Vincet Aggarwal and the defendant no. 2 made a complaint with the concerned police station on 10.10.2014. That thereafter, the said defendant no. 2 gave information to the Manager ING Vysya Bank Ltd. on 16.10.2014 that after the death of her son Shri Vineet Aggarwal they have discovered from counter foil of the cheque books of the defendant no. 1 company and found that few cheque are missing and it is not in the knowledge of the company as to whom they have been issued. She requested the bank (Kotak Mahindra Bank which take over the ING Vysya bank Ltd.) for refer those cheques CS No 16893/2016 M/s Deepika Sarees P. Ltd Vs M/s Meenakshi Sarees P. Ltd Page No 13/31 mentioned in the letter dated 16.10.2014 to the defendant company before clearance.
(xi) That the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that alleged invoices are also not in conformity with the mandatory requirements under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 and Rules framed therein (hereinafter referred to as DVAT Act and Rules). The alleged invoices purportedly issued by the Plaintiff do not bear the word "Retail" or "Tax" which is mandatory requirement under the DVAT act and rules. It is also submitted that over the alleged invoices TIN Number of Seller, i.e., Plaintiff is not printed, which is mandatory as per DVAT Act and Rules. The same establishes that the Plaintiff has filed forged and manufactured invoices with ulterior motives, so as to earn wrongful gain at the cost of Defendant and to put the Defendants at wrongful loss.
(xii) That the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that the defendant no. 1 company had never made any purchases from the plaintiff and the same is evident from the fact that the defendant no. 1 company files its quarterly statement of book debts from borrower to ING Vysya Bank Ltd. as a mandatory compliance and the name of the plaintiff company has never been reflected in the said list of sundry creditors.
(xiii) That the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that the plaintiff company filed a criminal complaint under section 138 r/w. section 141 N.I. Act, 1881 wherein the defendant no. 2 and 3 were impleaded as the accused persons. However, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CRL.M.C. 4919/2015 and CRL.M.C. 4028/2015 vide CS No 16893/2016 M/s Deepika Sarees P. Ltd Vs M/s Meenakshi Sarees P. Ltd Page No 14/31 order dated 25.10.2016 quashed the proceedings qua the defendant no. 2 and 3.
(xiv) That the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that the plaintiff company is guilty of misleading this Hon'ble Court in as much as the liability of the Defendants as alleged by the plaintiff is for sale of Sarees as per invoices raised by M/s Deepika Saree Pvt.Ltd. and the cheques are presented in the name of the Deepika Sarees Pvt.Ltd. However, the stand of the plaintiff that this liability was later changed to personal loan in the name of VATSAL AGARWAL and the alleged receipts also mentioned the same cheques casts a doubt on the version of the plaintiff and for that there is no plausible explanation or reason as to why the plaintiff company will transfer its debts to an individual and also as to why a company choose to convert its business liability to a personal loan having issued cheques against the same and not asking for return of the same. On merits, each and and every allegation as levelled by the plaintiff in the plaint has been denied by the defendants including the acknowledgement of liabality by Sh Vineet Agarwal for and on behalf of the defendetnts. It has further been denied that Sh Vineet Agarwal ever issued the cheques in question on behalf of defendant no 1. The defendants have denied any business transaction with the plaintiffs and have denied that any amount is due or payable by the defendants to the plaintiffs.
REPLICATION
3. The plaintiffs filed their replication denying the averments made by the defendants in their amended written statement and denied the contents of the Written statement.
CS No 16893/2016 M/s Deepika Sarees P. Ltd Vs M/s Meenakshi Sarees P. Ltd Page No 15/31 ISSUES
4. The court had framed the following issues on 01.10.2018 for adjudication:-
1.Whether the suit against the Directors in their personal capacity is not maintainable? OPD
2.Whether the receipts dated 30.05.2014 and 26.06.2014 are the genuine receipts? OPP
3.Whether the suit has been instituted, signed and verified by duly authorized person? OPP
4.Whether the contract executed by and against the minor is the valid contract? Onus on parties.
5.Whether the plaintiff is not entitled for recovery of Rs. 28,47,000/-, as prayed for? OPP
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest? If so, at what rate, on what amount and for what period? OPP
7.Relief.
EVIDENCE
5. The plaintiffs, in order to prove their case had examined five witnesses.
Sh. Vibhor Aggarwal who examined himself as PW-1 and had entered the witness box as PW-1/1 and relied upon the following documents :-
S.No. Exhibits Documents
1. PW1/2 Copy of certificate of incorporation of the plaintiff company.
2. PW1/3 True Copy of the Board of Resolution in favour of Sh.
Vibhor Aggarwal.
3. PW1/4 Original invoices dated 12.04.2014, 21.04.2014, to PW1/9 28.04.2014, 02.05.2014, 09.05.2014.
4. PW1/A Certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
5. PW1/10 Original copy of receipt dated 30.05.2014.
CS No 16893/2016 M/s Deepika Sarees P. Ltd Vs M/s Meenakshi Sarees P. Ltd Page No 16/31
6. PW1/11 Original copy of receipt dated 26.06.2014.
7. PW1/12 Original cheque no. 414228.
8. PW1/13 Original cheque no. 565425.
9. PW1/14 Copy of cheque return memo dated 05.11.2014.
and PW1/15
10. PW1/16 Legal notice dated 12.11.2014 sent to the defendant.
11. PW1/17 Copy of speed post receipt and AD Card dispatched (Colly) with legal notice dated 12.11.2014.
12. PW1/18 Reply dated 27.11.2014 to the legal notice by defendant (Colly) no.1.
13. PW1/19 Reply dated 27.11.2014 to the legal notice by defendant (Colly) no. 2.
14. PW1/20 Reply dated 27.11.2014 to the legal notice by defendant (Colly) no. 3
6. The said witness was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant.
7. PW-2 i.e. Sh. Divakar Yadav who was summoned witness and who entered the witness box as PW2. He brought the summoned record i.e. the certificate of incorporation i.e. Ex. PW2/A, the audited balance sheet of defendant no 1 i.e. Ex. PW2/B (Colly) and the certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 i.e. Ex. PW2/C. The said witness was duly cross-examined by the counsel for the defendant.
8. PW-3 i.e. Sh. Yogesh Singhal entered the witness box as Ex. PW3 and the said witness was duly cross-examined by the counsel for the defendant.
9. PW-4 i.e. Mr. Amzad Ali who was the CSO working with HDFC Bank, Nai Sarak, Delhi-06 who was a summoned witness and had brought the summoned record pertaining to the account No 50200001797732 in the name of M/s Deepika Sarees Pvt Ltd and brought the record of cheque bearing no. 565425 and 414228 and the copy of the cheque no. 565425 obtained from the record of the bank is Ex. PW4/A, certified copy of the CS No 16893/2016 M/s Deepika Sarees P. Ltd Vs M/s Meenakshi Sarees P. Ltd Page No 17/31 cheque no. 414228 is Ex. PW4/B, statement of the account is Ex. PW4/C and the letter issued by Gajender Singh, Back Up Manager is Ex. PW4/D. The said witness was also duly cross-examined by the counsel for the defendants.
10. PW-5 i.e. Sh. Anupam Kamal, Service Manager at Kotak Mahindra Bank, Chandni Chowk, Dariba Branch, Delhi-06 was a summoned witness who brought the record pertaining to the account No 523044011707 in the name of M/s Meenakshi Sarees Pvt Ltd i.e. statement of account for the period w.e.f. 01.01.2014 to 31.12.2014. He deposed that the said account was freezed by the bank on 17.10.2014 with the reason 'as the Debit restriction was placed in the account by Chandni Chowk branch SOLID-4606 on 17.10.2014 and the cheque was rejected given the reason A/c level restriction Exists and was returned by them ING-RCC with the reason refer to drawer'. Since there was a debit restriction placed by the bank, no cheque was cleared. The statment of account of the company is Ex. PW5/1.
11. Vide order dated 09.01.2020 upon the separate statement of the director of the plaintiff company i.e. Sh. Vibhore Aggarwal, PE was closed.
12. The defendants, in order to prove their case had examined only one witness i.e. Smt. Mohini Aggarwal, who entered into the witness box as Ex. DW1/A and had not relied upon any documents. The said witness was duly cross-examined on subsequent dates by the counsel for the plaintiff and vide order dated 27.05.2023, DE was closed upon the statement made by the defendant no. 2 (director of the defendant no. 1). ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Issue no. 5 :Whether the plaintiff is not entitled for recovery of Rs.
28,47,000/-, as prayed for? OPP and CS No 16893/2016 M/s Deepika Sarees P. Ltd Vs M/s Meenakshi Sarees P. Ltd Page No 18/31 Issue no. 6 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest? If so, at what rate, on what amount and for what period? OPP are taken together.
13. The onus to prove the said issues was upon the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff no. 1 which is a private limited company supplied various sarees/goods to defendant no. 1 under Ex. PW1/4 to Ex. PW1/9 which are the invoices issued by plaintiff no. 1. As per the plaintiffs, the goods under the six invoices i.e. Ex. PW1/4 to Ex. PW1/9 have been supplied to defendant no. 1 company on various dates i.e. w.e.f 09.04.2014 to 09.05.2014 for a total sum of Rs. 27 lacs. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the aforesaid goods supplied under Ex. PW1/4 to Ex. PW1/9 have been duly acknowledged to have been received by the defendants through Sh. Vineet Aggarwal who promised to pay the invoiced amount with a period of 15 days and not later than 30 days of the transaction. As per the plaintiff, the defendants failed and neglected to pay the outstanding amount and later on the managing director of defendant no. 1 i.e. Sh. Vineet Aggarwal approached the plaintiff and requested the plaintiff to grant loan of the said amount which would incur interest @ 12% per annum and promised to pay the said amount within a short period together with interest. The plaintiff, as per the plaint, agreed to treat the outstanding amount as loan to the defendant. As per the plaint, Sh. Vineet Aggarwal acknowledged the liability for an amount of Rs. 27 lacs vide receipt dated 30.05.2014 and 26.06.2014 (Ex. PW/10 and Ex. PW1/11 respectively) who also issued two post dated cheques for a sum of Rs. 12 lac and Rs. 15 lacs vide cheque bearing no. 414228 and 565425 drawn on ING VAYSA BANK, Chandni Chowk Branch, Delhi payable on 20.09.2014. It is the stand of the plaintiff that upon the failure of defendant no. 1 acting through Sh. Vineet Aggarwal to pay the CS No 16893/2016 M/s Deepika Sarees P. Ltd Vs M/s Meenakshi Sarees P. Ltd Page No 19/31 outstanding amount to plaintiff no.1 company, Sh. Vineet Aggarwal requested plaintiff no. 1 company to treat the outstanding amount as loan payable to plaintiff no. 2, minor, master Vatsal Aggarwal, Son of Sh. Vibhore Aggarwal, Director of Plaintiff No 1 company. Thus, as per the plaintiff, the defendants were liable to pay a total amount of Rs. 27 lacs to minor Master Vatsal Aggarwal towards repayment of loan. As per the plaintiff, the two cheques i.e. Ex. PW1/12 and Ex. PW1/13 both dated 30.09.2014 have been issued in the name of plaintiff no. 1 company so that after realization of the cheque amount, money would be paid to plaintiff no. 2. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff deposited Ex. PW1/12 and Ex. PW1/13 for realization on 03.11.2014 however, the same were returned unpaid vide Ex. PW1/4 and Ex. PW1/15. Thus, as per the plaintiff, plaintiff no. 2/minor is entitled to recover total sum of Rs. 27 Lacs alongwith interest from the defendants.
14. The defendants have denied having purchased any goods under Ex.
PW1/4 to Ex. PW1/9 who have also denied having issued Ex. PW1/10 and Ex. PW1/11 which as per the defendants are false and fabricated. As per the defendants, Ex. PW1/12 and Ex. PW1/13 i.e. the cheques have not been issued by Sh. Vineet Aggarwal on behalf of defendant no. 1 and the same are stated to have been mis-appropriated by the plaintiffs.
15. Thus, in order to prove the present issue, the plaintiff was required to prove that the various goods have been supplied by plaintiff no. 1 to defendant no. 1 under Ex. PW1/4 to Ex. PW1/9. The plaintiffs are also required to prove that defendant incurred a liability for an amount of Rs. 27 lacs towards the supply of goods under Ex. PW1/4 to Ex. PW1/9. The plaintiff is further required to prove that upon the request made by Sh. Vineet Aggarwal plaintiff no. 1 company agreed to treat the outstanding CS No 16893/2016 M/s Deepika Sarees P. Ltd Vs M/s Meenakshi Sarees P. Ltd Page No 20/31 invoiced amount as loan payable to plaintiff no. 2 i.e. minor Master Vatsal Aggarwal, Son of the director of the plaintiff company. The plaintiffs are further required to prove that consequent upon plaintiff no. 1 company having agreed to the request of Sh. Vineet Aggarwal, Managing Director of Defendant no. 1, plaintiff no. 1 company assigned its debt towards the alleged recovery of the price of the goods supplied under Ex. PW1/4 to Ex. PW1/9 in favour of plaintiff no. 2 and towards the discharge of the same, Ex. PW1/12 and Ex. PW1/13 have been issued by Sh. Vineet Aggarwal on behalf of defendant no. 1.
16. In order to prove this issue, the plaintiffs have relied upon the testimony of PW-1 to PW-5. PW-1 has deposed on the lines of the plaint and has relied upon Ex. PW1/4 to Ex. PW1/9 which are the invoices issued by plaintiff no. 1 company to defendant no. 1 company. As per Ex PW-1, the goods as mentioned in Ex.PW1/4 to Ex. PW1/9 were received and acknowledged by defendant no. 1 through Sh. Vineet Aggarwal and as such plaintiff no. 1 became entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 27 lacs. In his cross-examination, PW-1 has admitted that the invoices i.e. Ex. PW1/4 to Ex. PW1/9 do not bear the stamp of the defendant or of the plaintiff company. It has further been admitted by PW-1 that Ex. PW1/4 to Ex. PW1/9 do not bear the signatures of either Vineet Aggarwal or of defendant no. 2 and 3. PW-1 could not disclose the name of the executive of the defendant company who has signed upon Ex. PW1/4 to Ex. PW1/9 to whom the goods under Ex. PW1/4 to Ex. PW1/9 were supplied. PW-1 although has stated that his employee used to deliver goods at the shop of defendant no. 1 company could not disclose the name of the employee who used to deliver the goods. PW-1 has also admitted that he has not filed any delivery report with regard to the supply of goods. It is further CS No 16893/2016 M/s Deepika Sarees P. Ltd Vs M/s Meenakshi Sarees P. Ltd Page No 21/31 admitted by PW-1 that he has not filed any ledger account or any audited report or any other books of accounts which shows the defendant no. 1 company as a debtor of plaintiff no. 1 company.
17. The plaintiffs have summoned the certificate of incorporation of the plaintiff and audited balance sheet of defendant no. 1 company from the office of the registrar of companies, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi which record was produced by PW-2 and exhibited as Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW2/B. As per Ex. PW2/B, the name of plaintiff no. 1 company or of plaintiff no. 2 has not been mentioned in the list of the creditors. As per PW-2, he had duly brought the relevant record as summoned.
18. PW-3 who is stated to be the accountant in his cross-examination, although has stated to have prepared the account statement of the defendant and having handed over the same to the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff has failed to file the aforesaid account statement which is stated to have been prepared by PW-3 and handed over to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff has failed to prove that infact the goods under Ex. PW1/4 to Ex. PW1/9 have been supplied to defendant no. 1 company against Ex. PW1/4 to Ex. PW1/9 and that Defendant No 1 is their debtor accordingly, it cannot be said that defendant no. 1 was liable to pay an amount of Rs. 27 Lacs to plaintiff no. 1 for the alleged supply of goods.
19. In order to seek recovery of an amount of Rs. 27 Lacs, the plaintiff further relied upon PW1/10 and PW1/11 which as per the plaintiff have been executed by Sh. Vineet Aggarwal after the plaintiff company agreed to treat the outstanding amount as loan payable to plaintiff no. 2 i.e. minor Master Vatsal Aggarwal, son of Sh. Vibhore Aggarwal, Director of plaintiff company. Thus, as per the plaintiff, the defendants were liable to CS No 16893/2016 M/s Deepika Sarees P. Ltd Vs M/s Meenakshi Sarees P. Ltd Page No 22/31 pay an amount of Rs. 27 Lacs to minor Master Vatsal Aggarwal/plaintiff no. 2 towards repayment of loan.
20. A bare perusal of Ex. PW1/10 and Ex. PW1/11 goes to show that under the said documents, the defendant no. 1 has received an amount of Rs. 12 Lacs from Sh. Vatsal Aggarwal as cash deposit/loan to be paid with interest @ 1%. It is not the case of the plaintiff that any cash deposit/loan has been disbursed to defendant no. 1 towards loan. The plaintiff, in his plaint has nowhere stated that any cash payment for an amount of Rs. 27 Lacs was ever made to defendant no. 1 since it is all throughout the case of the plaintiff that at the request of Sh. Vineet Aggarwal, the outstanding amount under the invoices and payable to plaintiff no. 1 was agreed to be treated as loan payable to plaintiff no. 2. It is further the case of the plaintiff that towards the discharge of the liability towards loan, Sh. Vineet Aggarwal duly acknowledged the same on behalf of defendant no. 1 vide Ex. PW1/10 and Ex. PW1/11 who later on issued Ex. PW1/12 and Ex. PW1/13 (Cheques for an amount of Rs. 12 Lacs and Rs. 15 Lacs respectively) both dated the cheques dated 30.09.2014 are in the name of plaintiff no. 1 which goes to falsify the story of cash loan paid by Master Vatsal Aggarwal as put forward by the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff treating the price of supply of goods ( which the Plaintiff failed to prove) as loan payable to Master Vatsal Aggarwal.
21. Plaintiff no. 1 company is a private limited company. The plaintiff no. 1 has not placed on record any agreement/document or board resolution thereby assigning their debt in favour of the minor son of the director of plaintiff no. 1 or consideration for such assignment. Moreover, Ex. PW1/10 and Ex. PW1/11 goes to show an altogether different transaction which is completely different than the pleaded case of the plaintiff. As CS No 16893/2016 M/s Deepika Sarees P. Ltd Vs M/s Meenakshi Sarees P. Ltd Page No 23/31 per Ex. PW1/10 and Ex. PW1/11, defendant no. 1 has taken cash towards loan from Sh. Vatsal Aggarwal and it cannot be said that under Ex. PW1/10 and Ex. PW1/11 any assignment of debt in favour of plaintiff no.
2.
22. The plaintiffs have not been able to demonstrate that Ex. PW1/10 and Ex.
PW1/11 have any connection with the liability of defendant no. 1 towards plaintiff no. 1 against the supply of goods against invoices i.e. Ex. PW1/4 to Ex. PW1/9. PW-1, in his cross-examination has admitted that Ex. PW1/10 and Ex. PW1/11 nowhere mentions that the sale transaction was converted into a loan transaction. The pleaded case of the plaintiffs is contrary to the documents placed on record and more particularly Ex. PW1/10 and Ex. PW1/11 including the alleged cheques issued both dated 30.09.2014 which as per the plaintiff have been issued after the proposal of Sh. Vineet Aggarwal was accepted by plaintiff no. 1 company i.e. to treat the outstanding amount as loan payable to plaintiff no. 2. In case, the pleaded case of the plaintiff is taken to be correct there was no occasion for Sh. Vineet Aggarwal to have issued Ex. PW1/12 and Ex. PW1/13 in favour of plaintiff no. 1 and not in favour of Master Vatsal Aggarwal, son of Sh. Vibhor Aggarwal, director of plaintiff company. The plaintiff has further failed to show whether Master Vatsal Aggarwal who is a minor had the capacity to pay an amount of Rs. 27 lacs to defendant no. 1 and that too in cash.
23. Thus, the plaintiff has failed to prove that upon the request made by Sh.
Vineet Aggarwal plaintiff no. 1 company agreed to treat the outstanding invoiced amount as loan payable to plaintiff no. 2 i.e. minor Master Vatsal Aggarwal, Son of the director of the plaintiff company. The plaintiffs have further failed to prove that consequent upon plaintiff no. 1 CS No 16893/2016 M/s Deepika Sarees P. Ltd Vs M/s Meenakshi Sarees P. Ltd Page No 24/31 company having agreed to the request of Sh. Vineet Aggarwal, Managing Director of Defendant no. 1, plaintiff no. 1 company assigned its debt towards the recovery of the goods supplied under Ex. PW1/4 to Ex. PW1/9 in favour of plaintiff no. 2 and towards the discharge of the same, Ex. PW1/12 and Ex. PW1/13 have been issued by Sh. Vineet Aggarwal on behalf of defendant no. 1.
24. Ld. counsel for the plaintiff has contended that since DW-1 has admitted the handwriting of Sh. Vineet Aggarwal on Ex. PW1/10 and Ex. PW1/11 and has further admitted the signatures on Ex. PW1/12 hence, the plaintiff has been able to prove its case since presumption under Section 118 is required to be drawn in favour of the plaintiff. It has further been contended by the counsel for the plaintiff that the defendants have led no evidence to rebut the said presumption. Before dealing with the said contention, it is relevant to reproduce Section 118 of the NI Act which as follows :-
"118. Presumptions as to negotiable instruments Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made :-
(a) of consideration- that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration;
(b) as to date- that every negotiable instrument bearing a date was made or drawn on such date;
(c)........................
(d).......................
(e)......................
(f)......................
(g)....................."
25. The said contention is clearly mis-conceived as is evident from the cross-
examination of PW-1. The plaintiffs through the evidence led of PW-1 to PW-5 have not been able to establish that goods under the invoices Ex.
CS No 16893/2016 M/s Deepika Sarees P. Ltd Vs M/s Meenakshi Sarees P. Ltd Page No 25/31 PW1/4 to Ex. PW1/9 have been supplied to defendant no. 1 which is the basis of the entire suit. It has been held by the full bench by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Rangappa vs. Mohan, AIR 2010 SC 189(MANU/SC/0376/2010) that the presumption under Section 139 of NI Act is a rebuttable presumption. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India are reproduced hereinbelow :-
"14. In light of these extracts, we are in agreement with the respondent-claimant that the presumption mandated by Section 139 of the Act does indeed include the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. To that extent, the impugned observations in Krishna Janardhan Bhat (supra) may not be correct. However, this does not in any way cast doubt on the correctness of the decision in that case since it was based on the specific facts and circumstances therein. As noted in the citations, this is of course in the nature of a rebuttable presumption and it is open to the accused to raise a defence wherein the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested. However, there can be no doubt that there is an initial presumption which favours the complainant. Section 139 of the Act is an example of a reverse onus clause that has been included in furtherance of the legislative objective of improving the credibility of negotiable instruments. While Section 138 of the Act specifies a strong criminal remedy in relation to the dishonour of cheques, the rebuttable presumption under Section 139 is a device to prevent undue delay in the course of litigation. However, it must be remembered that the offence made punishable by Section 138 can be better described as a regulatory offence since the bouncing of a cheque is largely in the nature of a civil wrong whose impace is usually confined to the private parties involved in commercial transactions. In such a scenario, the test of proportionally should guide the construction and interpretation of reverse onus clauses and the accused/defendant cannot be expected to discharge an unduly high standard or proof. In the absence of compelling justifications, reverse onus clauses usually impose an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden. Keeping this in view, it is a presumption under Section 139, the standard of proof for doing so is that of 'preponderance of probabilities'. Therefore, if the accused is able to raise a probable defence which creates doubts CS No 16893/2016 M/s Deepika Sarees P. Ltd Vs M/s Meenakshi Sarees P. Ltd Page No 26/31 about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail. As clarified in the citations, the accused can rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise such a defence and it is conceivable that in some cases the accused may not need to adduce evidence of his/her own."
26. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of N Vijay Kumar vs. Vishwananth Rao N; 2025 INSC 537 wherein it has been held that both the presumptions under Section 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act i.e. of consideration and of the holder receiving the cheque in discharge of a debt or liability are rebuttable. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that on the rebuttal of the presumptions on establishing of the probable defence, the burden again shifts upon the complainant to establish his case. Vide para 11 of the aforesaid judgment, a reference has been made to para 44 of the judgment rendered in the case of Rajesh Jain vs. Ajay Singh which reads as under :-
" 44. Therefore, in fine, it can be said that once the accused adduces evidence to the satisfaction of the Court that on a preponderance of probabilities there exists no debt/liability in the manner pleaded in the complaint or the demand notice or the affidavit-evidence, the burden shifts to the complainant and the presumption "disappears" and does not haunt the accused any longer. The onus having now shifted to the complainant, he will be obliged to prove the existence of a debt/liability as a matter of fact and his failure to prove would result in dismissal of his complaint case. Thereafter, the presumption under Section 139 does not again come to the complainant's rescue. Once both parties have adduced evidence, the Court has to consider the same and the burden of proof loses all its importance. [Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa {Basalingappa v. Mudi basappa, (2019) 5 SCC 418 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 571 : AIR 2019 SC 1983] ; see also, Rangappa v. Sri Mohan [Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 477 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 184 : AIR 2010 SC 1898}]"
CS No 16893/2016 M/s Deepika Sarees P. Ltd Vs M/s Meenakshi Sarees P. Ltd Page No 27/31
27. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid observations, the defendant can rebut the presumption of liability under Section 118 and 139 of the NI Act on the basis of cross-examination of the plaintiff and the material produced by the plaintiff given in the absence of his affirmative evidence. This court is of the view that the defendant has succeeded in rebutting the presumption of consideration and of the holder receiving the cheque in discharge of a debt or liability since the plaintiff failed to prove any consideration for the issuance of Ex. PW1/12 and Ex. PW1/13 who has grossly failed to prove that the goods under Ex. PW1/4 to Ex. PW1/9 were duly supplied to defendant no.1. Accordingly, the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree on the strength of Ex. PW1/12 and Ex. PW1/13 alone solely relying upon the presumptions under Section 118 and 139 of the NI Act. The issue is accordingly decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
Issue no. 1.Whether the suit against the Directors in their personal capacity is not maintainable? OPD
28. The plaintiffs in the present matter besides defendant no. 1 to whom allegedly goods under Ex. PW1/4 to Ex. PW1/9 have been supplied have impleaded defendant no. 2 and defendant no. 3 as the defendants. The said defendants have been impleaded being the directors of defendant no.
1. Since the entire case of the plaintiff is towards the recovery of liability incurred by defendant no. 1, which is a private limited company, the impleadment of its directors against whom no right to relief has been claimed by the plaintiff in the present suit, the suit against the said directors i.e. defendant no. 2 and 3 is clearly not maintainable. The present issue is accordingly decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs.
CS No 16893/2016 M/s Deepika Sarees P. Ltd Vs M/s Meenakshi Sarees P. Ltd Page No 28/31 Issue no. 2.Whether the receipts dated 30.05.2014 and 26.06.2014 are the genuine receipts? OPP
29. The onus to prove the said issue was upon the plaintiff. The plaintiffs have not led the evidence of any witness who has deposed that he is acquainted with the signatures of Sh. Vineet Aggarwal. Although, DW-1 has identified the letter head belonging to defendant no. 1 and also the handwriting of Sh. Vineet Aggarwal on Ex. PW1/10 and also on Ex. PW1/11, however, she has clearly stated that she cannot identify the signatures of Sh. Vineet Aggarwal as shown to her and also that she has not seen his signatures. DW-1 has clearly denied the signatures of Sh. Vineet Aggarwal on Ex. PW1/12 and Ex. PW1/13 when shown Ex. PW4/A and Ex. PW4/B. It is pertinent to mention that there are no witnesses to Ex. PW1/10 and Ex. PW1/11 and since the signatures of Sh. Vineet Aggarwal have not been proved upon Ex. PW1/10 and Ex. PW1/11, it cannot be said that Ex. PW1/10 and Ex. PW1/11 are the genuine receipts. The plaintiff has not led the evidence of any bank official or has summoned any witness who has identified the signatures of Sh. Vineet Aggarwal. Besides the aforesaid, the plaintiff has not examined any handwriting expert so as to prove the signatures of Sh. Vineet Aggarwal. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
Issue no. 3. Whether the suit has been instituted, signed and verified by duly authorized person? OPP
30. The present suit has been filed under the signatures of Sh. Vibhor Aggarwal, director of the plaintiff company. Alongwith the suit, Ex. PW1/3 has been filed thereby authorising Sh. Vibhor Aggarwal, director to represent the company and to sign and verify the plaint and to institute CS No 16893/2016 M/s Deepika Sarees P. Ltd Vs M/s Meenakshi Sarees P. Ltd Page No 29/31 the suit against the defendant. The said authorization has been signed by both the directors of the plaintiff company. PW-1 in his cross- examination has stated that he has been authorized vide board meeting to file the present suit. Keeping in view the fact that the authorization i.e. Ex. PW1/3 has been signed by both the directors of the plaintiff, the same can be construed as due authorization to file the present suit. The present issue is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue no. 4. Whether the contract executed by and against the minor is the valid contract? Onus on parties.
31. The onus to prove the said issue was upon the parties. In terms of Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, all agreements are contracts which are made with the free consent of the parties competent to contract for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object and are not expressly declared to be void. In the celebrated judgment passed in the matter of Mohiri Bibi vs. Dharmodas Ghosh, it has been held by the privy council that agreement made with the minor is void ab initio. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case and as per the findings returned on Issue no. 5, the said doctrine is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The plaintiff has set-up a case that plaintiff no. 1 being a private limited company supplied various goods to defendant no. 1 which too is a private limited company against invoices. It is further the case of the plaintiff that upon the defendants failing and neglecting to pay the outstanding amount, the managing director of defendant no. 1 approached the plaintiff and requested the plaintiff to treat the said amount as loan payable to plaintiff no. 2, minor, Master Vatsal Aggarwal, Director of plaintiff no. 1 company. Perusal of Ex.
CS No 16893/2016 M/s Deepika Sarees P. Ltd Vs M/s Meenakshi Sarees P. Ltd Page No 30/31 PW1/10 and Ex. PW1/11 goes to show that the said receipts are not signed by Master Vatsal Aggarwal nor anybody on his behalf and is merely a receipt of receiving cash deposit of Rs. 12 Lacs and Rs. 15 Lacs from Master Vatsal Aggarwal. The plaintiff no. 1 has also not been able to place on record any document vide which the amount receivable by it against sale of goods stood assigned in favour of plaintiff no. 2. None of the parties have been able to establish any agreement entered into by them with the minor Master Vatsal Aggarwal. It is not the case of the plaintiff that any cash payment for an amount of Rs 27 Lacs was ever made to defendant no. 1 by Master Vatsal Aggarwal whose case has althoughout been that the amount receivable by plaintiff no. 1 was agreed to be treated as loan payable to plaintiff no. 2. The issue is answered accordingly.
RELIEF:
32.In view of the above discussions, the suit filed by the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
33.No order as to costs.
34.Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
35.File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by Announced in Open Court (SACHIN SOOD) SACHIN SACHIN SOOD Date:
SOOD 2025.10.25 17:18:53 +0530 25.10.2025. DJ-01/(Central) THC, Delhi.
CS No 16893/2016 M/s Deepika Sarees P. Ltd Vs M/s Meenakshi Sarees P. Ltd Page No 31/31