Delhi District Court
Shiva Textiles vs Krishna Sales Corporation on 28 September, 2018
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. SNIGDHA SARVARIA : MM : NI ACT-03
(CENTRAL) : TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI.
CC No.534099/16
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 25.10.2005
DATE RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT : 05.09.2018
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 28.09.2018
IN THE MATTER OF:
M/s Shiva Textiles,
Through its Prop.
Smt. Priya Chug,
Having its Office at 416,
Haveli Haider Quali,
Near HDFC Bank,
Chandni Chowk, Delhi.
Through her Attorney
and Authorized Representative
Sh. Raj Pal Arora
........Complainant
VERSUS
1. M/s Krishna Sales Corporation,
Through its Partner
221, Rama Market,
Pitampura, Delhi34.
2. Sh. Anup Aggarwal,
Partner M/s Krishna Sales Corporation
R/o F703, Jhule Lal Apartments,
Pitampura, Delhi.
..........Accused
JUDGMENT :
a) Srl. No. of the case & Date of institution :536/05 & 25.10.2005
b) Date of commission of offence :on the 15th day of recieving
of legal demand notice
CC No. 534099/2016
Shiva Textiles vs Krishna Sales Corporation
2
c) Name of the complainant :M/s. Shiva Textiles
d) Name of the accused :M/s. Krishna Sales
Corporation & Anr.
e) Nature of offence complained of : S. 138 NI Act
f) Plea of the accused person :Accused pleaded
not guilty
h) Final Order : Convicted.
i) Date of order :28.09.2018
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 138 OF
THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT,
1881
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE:
JUDGMENT:
Brief facts
1. The brief facts of the present complaint filed U/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "NI Act") are that the complainant is a Proprietorship firm and Smt. Priya Chugh is the Sole Prop. Of the firm and she has appointed Sh. Raj Pal Arora as her attorney holder. The accused no.1 is a Partnership firm and accused no.2 is the partner of the said firm and dealing with the complainant. The accused no.2 approached complainant at his office / shop and purchased goods as under :
i) Bill no.1095 dated 06.08.2005 for sum of Rs.187890/.
ii) Bill no.1096 dated 08.08.2005 for sum of Rs.212110/.
The accused requested the complainant and sought a period of one month for the payment of above said bills and issued a post dated cheque no.849791 dated 12.09.2005 for sum of Rs.4,00,000/ drawn on Punjab National Bank, Sector7, Rohini, Delhi. The complainant CC No. 534099/2016 Shiva Textiles vs Krishna Sales Corporation 3 presented the above said cheque through his banker HDFC Bank, Chandni Chowk, Delhi but the same was returned unpaid vide return memo dated 13.09.2005 for the reason 'Account Closed'. The complainant got issued a legal notice dated 16.09.2005 through his counsel which was sent by Regd. A. D. On 19.09.2005 as well as UPC on 20.09.2005 but the accused manipulated the service of Regd. A. D. In collusion with the postal authority and one of the regd. envelopes was returned with the remarks 'Bar Bar Janey Par Praptkarta Nahi Mila' which shows the deliberate refusal, but at both the addresses, the accused were served through UPC. The accused neither replied the said notice nor made any payment within the statutory period of 15 days and thereafter, complainant filed the present case. Therefore, it is stated that the accused is liable for the commission of the offence U/s. 138 of the NI Act.
Proceedings Before Court
2. In the present complaint summons were issued against the accused. The accused entered appearance and notice of accusation was framed against the accused on 28.05.2007 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its case, the complainant examined AR of the complainant Mr. Raj Pal Arora as CW1 and he was crossexamined at length. He proved his affidavit by way of evidence as Ex.CW1/A; Original SPA as Ex CW1/1; carbon copies of bill nos. 1095 dated 06.08.2005 and bill no. 1096 dated 08.08.2005 as Ex CW1/2 and Ex CW1/3; cheque no. 849791 dated 12.09.2005 in favour of the complainant for Rs. 4,00,000/ drawn on Punjab National Bank, Sector 7, Rohini, Delhi as Ex.CW1/4; return memo issued by PNB as Ex CW1/5 and return memo issued by HDFC as Ex CW1/6; Legal notice dated 16.09.2005 as Ex.CW1/7; registered AD as Ex CW1/8 & Ex CW1/9; Original UPC as Ex.CW1/10 and returned regd. AD as Ex CW1/11 & Ex CW1/12. The complainant closed its CC No. 534099/2016 Shiva Textiles vs Krishna Sales Corporation 4 evidence on 17.09.2011.
4. Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on 16.12.2012 wherein accused stated that he was not present in Delhi on 06.08.2005 & 08.08.2005. He denied giving cheque in question. He denied any liability. He stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He stated that he has not traded in cloth in his entire life till date and the cheque in question was misplaced and has been misused.
5. The accused examined Mr. Rajeev Kumar Vikal as DW1 who proved certified copy of statement of account of bank account of Krishna Sales Corporation in Punjab National bank, Rohini, Sector7, Delhi as Ex DW1/1; DW2 as Rajeev Kumar Gupta; DW3 Sh. Ravi Bhushan Aggarwal; DW4 Bhim Sen; DW5 Awanish Kumar Jaiswal; DW6 Jagdish Kumar; DW7 Anup Kumar Aggarwal. The defence witnesses were examined at length. Defence evidence was closed on 04.10.2016.
6. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the record and have gone through the relevant provisions of the law.
Findings
7. The following are the components of the offence punishable under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act: (1) drawing of the cheque by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker, for payment to another person from out of that account for discharge in whole/part any debt or liability, (2) presentation of the cheque by the payee or the holder in due course to the bank, (3) returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank for want of sufficient funds to the credit of the drawer or any arrangement with the banker to pay the sum covered by the cheque, (4) giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of information by the payee from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid CC No. 534099/2016 Shiva Textiles vs Krishna Sales Corporation 5 demanding payment of the cheque amount, (5) failure of the drawer to make payment to the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, of the amount covered by the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the notice.
8. As per the complainant he got issued a legal notice dated 16.09.2005 through his counsel which was sent by Regd. A. D. On 19.09.2005 as well as UPC on 20.09.2005 but the accused manipulated the service of Regd. A. D. in collusion with the postal authority and one of the regd. envelopes was returned with the remarks 'Bar Bar Janey Par Praptkarta Nahi Mila' which shows the deliberate refusal, but at both the addresses, the accused were served through UPC. During crossexamination of accused no. 2 as DW7 on 25.06.2014 he stated that he was residing at the address F703, Jhulelal Appartment, Pitampura, Delhi and that accused no. 1 partnership firm was working at 221, Rama Market, Pitampura, Delhi34. The legal notices as per Ex CW1/7 to Ex CW1/12 was sent at the aforesaid two addresses, which as per the accused himself are correct addresses on the relevant dates. Thus, as per S. 27 of The General Clauses Act the accused persons are deemed to be served with the legal demand notice. Also, in view of the decision in C.C. Alavi Haji v Palapetty Muhammad & Anr. (2007) 6 SCC 555, which states that in case, drawer of the cheque raises an objection that he never received Legal Notice U/s 138 of N.I. Act, he can within 15 days of the receipt of summons make payment of the cheque amount and in case, he does not do so, he cannot complain that there was no proper service of Legal Notice U/s 138 of N.I. Act. Hence, in view of the Judgment in C.C. Alavi Haji, the presumption of service of Legal Notice has arisen if not of the legal notice Ex CW1/7 sent vide registered post then through issuance of summons by the court.
9. In his statement under S. 313 CrPC the accused admitted the issuance of the cheque in question. Since issuance of cheque in question by the CC No. 534099/2016 Shiva Textiles vs Krishna Sales Corporation 6 accused is not disputed, hence, presumption U/s.139 of the NI Act is raised.
10. In Rangappa v. Sri Mohan AIR 2010 SC 1898 it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under :
"14. In light of these extracts, we are in agreement with the respondentclaimant 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 impact is usually confined to the private parties involved in commercial transactions. In such a scenario, the test of proportionality 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 settled position that when an accused has to rebut the 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 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 and it is conceivable that in some cases the accused may not need to adduce evidence of his/her own. " (emphasis added)
11. In view of the decision in Rangappa laid down by the Supreme Court, the presumption raised under Section 139 of the NI Act is of legally enforceable debt or liability and it is for the accused persons to raise a CC No. 534099/2016 Shiva Textiles vs Krishna Sales Corporation 7 probable defence to rebut the presumption.
12. Section 139 NI 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 NI Act specifies a strong criminal remedy in relation to the dishonour of cheques, the rebuttable presumption under Section 139 NI Act 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 NI Act can be better described as a regulatory offence since the bouncing of a cheque is largely in the nature of a civil wrong those impact is usually confined to the private parties involved in commercial transactions. In such a scenario, the test of proportionality should guide the construction and interpretation of reverse onus clauses and the defendant accused cannot be expected to discharge an unduly high standard of proof.
13. The reverse onus clauses usually impose an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden. Keeping this in view, it is a settled position that when an accused has to rebut the presumption under Section 139 NI Act, 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 about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail. 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.
14. As discussed herein above, under S. 139 NI Act strong rebuttable presumptions in favour of the complainant arise but same can be rebutted by the accused by way of credible defence.
CC No. 534099/2016Shiva Textiles vs Krishna Sales Corporation 8
15. The defence raised by the accused is that the cheques in question bear signatures of accused no. 2 but name of the complainant and date on the cheque were not filled by him. At this juncture it would be worthwhile to discuss the provisions under S. 20 and S. 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which is as under:
20.Inchoate stamped instruments. Where one person signs and delivers to another a paper stamped in accordance with the law relating to negotiable instruments then in force in [India], and either wholly blank or having written thereon an incomplete negotiable instrument, he thereby gives prima facie authority to the holder thereof to make or complete, as then case may be, upon it a negotiable instrument, instrument, for any amount specified therein and not exceeding the amount covered by the stamp. The person so signing shall be liable upon such instrument, in the capacity in which he signed the same, to any holder in due course for such amount, provided that no person other than a holder in due course shall recover from the person delivering the instrument anything in excess of the amount intended by him to be paid thereunder.
118. Presumptions as to negotiable instruments of consideration Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:
(a) of considerationthat 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) as to time of acceptance that every accepted bill of exchange was accepted within a reasonable time after its date its date and before its maturity;
(d) as to time of transfer. that every transfer of a negotiable instrument was made before its maturity;
(e) as to order of endorsements that the endorsements appearing upon a negotiable instrument were made in the order in which they appear thereon;
(f) as to stampsthat a lost promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque was duly stamped;
(g) that holder is a holder in due course that the holder of a negotiable instrument is a holder in due course; provided that, where the instrument has been contained from its lawful owner, or form any person in lawful custody thereof, by means of an offence or fraud, or for unlawful consideration, the burden of proving that the holder is a holder in due course lies upon him.
16. Further, in Mojj Engineering Systems Limited & Ors. Vs. A.B. Sugars Ltd.; 154 (2008) Delhi Law Times 579, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had observed as under : CC No. 534099/2016 Shiva Textiles vs Krishna Sales Corporation 9 "7. Even otherwise, prima facie, it was the petitioners who had handed over the undated cheque for a certain amount to the respondent in terms of a contract between the parties. Since an undated cheque cannot be encashed, it can only mean that the petitioners had authorized the complainant to enter an appropriate date on it. In Young Vs. Grote (1827) 4 Bing. 253 it was held that when a blank cheque is signed and handed over, it means the person signing it has given an implied authority to any subsequent holder to fill it up. Similarly, in Scholfield Vs. Lord Londesborough (18951899) All ER Rep 282 it was held that whoever signs a cheque or accepts a bill in blank, and then puts it into circulation, must necessarily intend that either the person to whom he gives it, or some future holder, shall fill up the blank which he has left. This common law doctrine was also affirmed by Justice Macnaghten in Griffiths Vs. Dalton [1940] 2 KB 264 where it was held that the drawer of an undated cheque gives a prima facie authority to fill in the date. This aspect has also been incorporated in Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which deals with Inchoate Stamped Instruments. The Supreme Court in T.Nagappa Vs. Y.R.Murlidhar, (2008) 5 SCC 633 while discussing the scope of Section 20 held that by reason of this provision, a right has been created in the holder of the cheque. Prima facie, the holder thereof is authorized to complete the incomplete negotiable instrument. In that view of the matter, all further issues that may be raised by the petitioners regarding the nature and scope of the authority of the respondent to put any particular date on the cheque in question, are all matters for trial.
8. It is not as if the cheque came to be issued without any consideration whatsoever in the first place or that there was such a glaring defect in the complaint that the decision of the Trial Court to issue summons has ex facie resulted in miscarriage of justice or an abuse of the process of Court, and therefore interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings is warranted in the interest of justice. The question whether the consideration for which the cheque was issued was ultimately satisfied or whether the cheque was wrongly sought to be encashed, are all issues that must also be decided at the trial. The Supreme Court in the case of M.M.T.C. Ltd. and Another Vs. MEDCHL Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd. and Another,(2002) 1 SCC 234 held as follows:
"13.....the wellsettled law that the power of quashing criminal proceedings should be exercised very stringently and with circumspection. It is settled law that at this stage the Court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint. The inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice. At this stage the Court could not have gone into merits and/or come to a conclusion that there was no existing debt or liability."
The Court further held that:
"17. There is therefore no requirement that the complainant must specifically allege in the complaint that there was a subsisting liability. The burden of proving that there was no existing debt or liability was on the respondents. This they have to discharge in the trial. At this stage, merely on the basis of averments in the petitions filed by them the High Court could not have concluded that there was no existing debt or liability."CC No. 534099/2016
Shiva Textiles vs Krishna Sales Corporation 10
17. From the aforesaid discussion, it is manifest that by reason of the provision under S. 20 NI Act, a right has been created in the holder of the cheque. Prima facie, the holder thereof is authorized to complete the incomplete negotiable instrument.
18. The defence of the accused is that he was not present in Delhi on 06.08.2005 & 08.08.2005. He denied giving cheque in question. He denied any liability. He stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He stated that he has not traded in cloth in his entire life till date and the cheque in question was misplaced and has been misused.
19. The contention of the counsel for the accused is that the complainant has herself not entered into the witness box and her SPA has been prosecuting the case which gives benefit of doubt to the accused. Considering that the SPA of the complainant is well aware of the transaction in question and has dealt with the transaction himself as is culled out from the evidence of SPA as CW1, thus, is well aware of the facts of this case and this contention of the counsel for the accused is without any merits. The contention of the counsel for the complainant that CW1 is not aware of the transaction in question since he did not know about how the accused transported the goods/cloth from the shop of the complainant or that he did not know about/identify signatures of family members of the complainant or that is not aware of since how long the complainant and accused persons are having transactions with each other are of no merits as they are irrelevant to the case at hand and due to lapse of time certain discrepencies are bound to creep in. The decisions in A.C. Narayanan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2013 (11) Scale 360 and Ravi Gupta vs RC Tiwari - 2009 (1) DCR 626 (Del) relied upon by the counsel for the accused in this regard are also not applicable in the facts of this case and thus cannot be applied like a Euclid's theorem. Considering the testimony of CW1 in totality it is clear that he has withstood the crossexamination.
CC No. 534099/2016Shiva Textiles vs Krishna Sales Corporation 11
20. The contention of the counsel for the accused is that the complaint has been filed by the SPA of the complainant and the complainant has not even signed the complaint. In the Judgment of the case titled as A.C. Narayanan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2013 (11) Scale 360, it was so observed that filing of complaint petition under S. 138 of N.I. Act through power of attorney is perfectly legal and complaint is maintainable. Thus, the said contention of the accused is devoid of any merits. The decisions in C. Munniappan vs D.K. Rajenderan - AIR 2010 SC 3718 and Daulat Ram vs State of Punjab - (1962) 2 SCR (suppl.) 812 relied upon by the counsel for the accused in this regard are also not applicable in the facts of this case and thus cannot be applied like a Euclid's theorem. In the facts of the present case, the non appearancemof the complainant is also not fatal as CW1 had himself witnessed the transaction as has come forth in his testimony that he himself raised the invoices Ex CW1/2 and Ex CW1/3.
21. The contention of the counsel for the accused is that the bills/invoices Ex.
CW1/2 and Ex CW1/3 are false and fabricated since the accused was not present in Delhi on 06.08.2005 & 08.08.2005 and so did not hand over the cheque in question to the complainant and has not traded in cloth in his entire life till date and the cheque in question was misplaced and has been misused. In this regard the accused examined DW4 who stated that the train ticket Ex DW 4/2 is genuine but he cannot say who travelled on the said tickets. The accused has placed on record school leaving certificate and other documents pertaining to his daughter Ex DW7/6 to Ex DW7/8 to state that he was not in Delhi on 06.08.2005 and 08.08.2005 but none of these documents of her daughter show that the accused himself got issued the said document or had himself got her daughter admitted to a school in Gauhati or was in Gauhati on 06.08.2005 and 08.08.2005. Also, no document to show when the accused returned from Gauhati has been placed on record to show that CC No. 534099/2016 Shiva Textiles vs Krishna Sales Corporation 12 he was in Gauhati on the dates of the transaction. The cheque in question was dishonoured for the reason 'account closed' but as per the accused while deposing as DW7 he stated that the cheque in question was misplaced and was issued for some other person and accused had already signed and put amount on the cheque but did not fill the name of the person and the date on the cheque in question but if he had kept the cheque for some other person then when that other person must have come to collect the cheque from the accused then the accused must have come to know that his cheque has been misplaced. It has not been explained by the accused as to why like an ordinary prudent man he did not get the payment of the said cheque stopped. In the alternative, if the cheque was issued for some other person then why the cheque of an account closed bank account was issued by the accused has also not been explained. For the same reason, the statement of account of Punjab national bank, Rohini Ex DW1/1 and testimony of DW1 is also of no assistance to the accused. The bank statement of SBI proved through DW5 is also of no assistance to the accused as making of stop payment instructions Ex DW5/2 in no way can prove that the accused was travelling to Gauhati. In the light of the aforesaid discussions, the tickets and receipts of royal travels corp./travel agent are not believable in the absence of any document to show presence of accused in Gauhati.
22. As per the accused he has never dealt in cloth business but had dealt only in paints and now is dealing in paper. As per the sales tax registration certificate of accused no. 1 partnership firm Mark DW6/A (now Ex DW6/A as during crossexamination of DW 6 the said certificate and its contents were put to the witness) the cloth could have been used by the accused for packaging. It was for the accused to show that he never bought cloth for packaging of material sold by him by bringing his stock register etc. which he did not bring on record and thus it is not believable that the accused did not purchase cloth from the complainant. DW2 and DW3 have admitted in their testimonies that they are cousins of CC No. 534099/2016 Shiva Textiles vs Krishna Sales Corporation 13 the accused and thus their testimonies are not believable. In view of the foregoing discussions, an adverse inference with respect to the case set up by the accused is drawn.
23. The decisions in Jayantibhai Bhenkarbhai vs State of Gujarat - (2002) 8n SCC 165; Jumni vs State of Haryana and Prem Nath & Anr. Vs State of Haryana - 2014 CRLJ 1936 (SC); Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal vs Rashmi Aggarwal - III (2014) DMC 250 (All.); A. R. Antulay vs. R. S. Nayak - AIR 1984 SC 718 relied upon by the counsel for the accused in this regard are also not applicable in the facts of this case and thus cannot be applied like a Euclid's theorem.
24. As regards the contention as to how complainant knew on 06.08.2005 that purchase on 08.08.2005 would round up to Rs. 4 lacs it has come in the testimony of CW1 that the invoices were raised on 06.08.2005 and 08.08.2005 when the goods were delivered and as per invoice dated 08.08.2005 it was sent via cartage charged by the complainant so parties knew the total transaction amount would be Rs. 4 Lacs.
25. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the court finds that the accused has not been unable to prove any probable defence and has failed to rebut the presumption raised U/s 139 of the NI Act.
26. Since the accused has failed to rebut the presumption raised U/s. 139 of the NI Act, there is no need to go into complainant's evidence for proving the complainant's case. There is nothing coming out in the cross examination of complainant's witness which would probabilise the defence raised by the accused or falsify the case of the complainant. Therefore, the complainant has been able to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt.
27. The complainant has been able to prove that the cheque in question i.e. CC No. 534099/2016 Shiva Textiles vs Krishna Sales Corporation 14 cheque bearing no. 849791 dated 12.09.2005 in favour of the complainant for Rs. 4,00,000/ drawn on Punjab National Bank, Sector 7, Rohini, Delhi as Ex.CW1/4 was issued in discharge of legally recoverable liability owed to the complainant by the accused partnership firm Krishna Sales Corporation and accused partner Anup Kumar Aggarwal.
28. Therefore, the accused partnership firm Krishna Sales Corporation and accused partner Anup Kumar Aggarwal are convicted for the offence punishable U/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in respect of cheque Ex.CW1/4. Digitally signed by SNIGDHA SNIGDHA SARVARIA (A nnounced in open SARVARIA Date: 2018.09.28 Court on 28.09.2018 ) 17:13:32 +0530 (Snigdha Sarvaria) MM/NI Act-03/Central.
28.09.2018 Judge Code: 0530 CC No. 534099/2016 Shiva Textiles vs Krishna Sales Corporation