Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

PW2 Baleshwar Thakur who is the proprietor of Shubham Enterprises has proved his signatures on the document Ex.PW1/23 which according to him had been executed at the time when he was given a contract by Tarun Enterprises for printing purposes. He has deposed that the said job work was done at Delhi and the said printing work was done on 4 machines in a premises which was taken by Sh. N.K. Sharma of defendant no.1. He has further deposed that the said work was done by him from January 1998 to March 1998 and the payment was given to him by Tarun Enterprises.

The plaintiff has also examined one Kehri Singh as PW3 who has in his examination in chief deposed that he is the proprietor of Baghel Offset Printers and has identified his signatures on document Ex.PW­1/20. He has testified that the said document was executed by him when he was given a contract by Tarun Enterprises for printing purposes so that at the time when the job work is done the employees/ persons to do said work was made available. According to him, the said job work was done at Mohali, Chandigarh and the printing work was done on 3 machines. He has further stated that the premises in which the job work was done was taken by Sh. N.K. Sharma of defendant no.1 and the said work was done by him in December 1997 and January 1998 and the payment was given to him by Tarun Enterprises.

I have considered the arguments advanced before me and also the details written synopsis of arguments placed before me. I have also gone through the testimony of various witnesses and the documents placed on record. It is not disputed that the plaintiff is the son­in­law of V.C. Dubey having married his daughter in the year 1999. It is also an admitted case that Pawan Mishra is related to him being the husband of maternal aunt and J.P. Mishra is his earlier brother. The plaintiff before this court has not been able to prove that he had established sufficient goodwill but that would be irrelevant in view of the fact that it is not disputed by the defendant that the cheques had been issued in the name of the plaintiff no. 1 of which the plaintiff no. 2 is the sole proprietor. It is evident from the various communication between the parties which have been duly admitted by both the plaintiff and the defendant that the plaintiff was doing the job work of printing on contract basis. According to the plaintiff he had entered into an agreement with the defendant no. 2 for printing of electoral list for Delhi and Chandigarh which work had been given to him by N.K. Sharma. PW2 Baleshwar Thakur has corroborated the testimony of PW1 on this aspect and has duly proved that M/s. Tarun Enterprises had given him a contract of job work of printing which was done by him from January 1998 to March 1998 and he had done the said work on urgent basis in a premises at Shadi, Khampur, Delhi by employing 10 persons though the said witness has not been able place before this court any documentary record regarding the employment of said persons and all the payments received. PW3 Kehri Singh who is the proprietor of Bhagel Offset Printers has also admitted that the premises in which the job work was done had been taken by N.K. Sharma of defendant no. 1 and he had done the work for him in December 1997 to February 1998. He has specifically corroborated the testimony of PW1 that the job work was with regard to the printing of electoral list of Haryana and Punjab which was supposed to be an urgent work and had been completed in time for which there was no complaint. The witness from the bank B.B. Shah who has been examined as PW4 has proved that the cheques issued by the defendant no. 1 which are Ex.PW1/27, PW1/28 and PW1/29 had bounced on presentation on account of insufficient funds. He has placed on record the memos of the bank alongwith the memos from PNB to which there is no rebuttal.