IMPORTANT POINT
A plaintiff must establish a prima facie case and demonstrate the defendant's intent to obstruct justice to obtain security under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 of the CPC.

JUDGMENT :

KRISHNA RAO, J.

1. The plaintiff has filed the present application being G.A. No. 2 of 2021 in CS-COM 228 of 2024 (Old No. C.S. 3 of 2021) praying for an order directing the defendants to furnish security of Rs.2,23,30,636/- in default an order of injunction restraining the defendants from operating its bank account No. 08980200322125 in UCO Bank, Rampurhat Branch without maintaining an amount of Rs.2,23,30,636/- till the disposal of the suit.

2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of money on account of price of goods sold and delivered to the defendants.

3. As per the request of the defendant during the year 2013 to 2018, the plaintiff supplied bitumen and emulsion to the defendants for an aggregate value of Rs.1,76,20,667/- which were duly received by the defendant and against such supplies, the plaintiff raised invoices along with consignment documents. Out of the total amount of Rs. 1,76,20,667/- , the defendant has made part payment of Rs.65,79,190/- thus an amount of Rs.1,10,41,477/- remains outstanding.

4. The defendants failed to pay the amount, accordingly, the defendant is also liable to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum, the plaintiff has also claimed interest along with principal amount.

5. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff apprehends that the defendants with the intent to obstruct and delay the process of satisfaction of the decree that may passed by this Court, may dispose of part of whole the property owned by the defendants, thus it is necessary to direct the defendants to secure the amount of Rs.2,23,30,636/- as security till the disposal of the suit.

6. He submits that the defendants are maintaining a Bank Account No. 08980200322125 in UCO Bank, Rampurhat Branch and the plaintiffs came to know that the defendants are trying to siphon off funds from the said account to defeat the legitimate claim of the plaintiff to render the decree infructuous.

7. Counsel for the plaintiff in support of his case relied upon the following judgments:

(i) Rahul S. Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and Others, (2021) 6 SCC 418

(ii) Rajendran and Others vs. Shankar Sundaram and Others, (2008) 2 SCC 724

(iii) Abheya Realtors Private Limited vs. SSIPL Retail Limited & Anr. 2009 SCC Online Cal 2656

(iv) Sourav Ganguly vs. Mahuaa Media Pvt. Ltd. and Others, 2012 SCC Online Cal 11312

8. Learned Counsel for the defendants submits that no agreement or contract entered between the plaintiff and the defendants for supply of goods but the defendants have verbally placed order to the plaintiff on different dates for supply of bitumen for construction of road of the respective department of West Bengal.

9. The defendants says that the plaintiff has supplied below quality of materials and the defendants by communication dated 30th May, 2018, intimated about the said fact and also informed that due to below specification materials against which work has been done on the road causing damages of the road and the Government department directed the department to remove the same. The defendants say that even after receipt of the information, the plaintiff has not given any reply.

10. The defendants say that the plaintiff has supplied the said materials only in the year 2018 and has no bearing with the invoices of 2015 to 2017. The defendants say that time to time for each invoices sometimes either by cash or by cheques for the respective invoices, the defendants have paid the amount. The plaintiff supplied materials from 14th December, 2013 to 13th January, 2018 for a total sum of Rs. 1,65,37,595.70/- and the defendants have paid Rs.1,65,38,079.00/- and thus the defendants have paid excess amount of Rs.483.30/- .

11. The defendants says that the plaintiff has made a false claim as to the invoices being No. MPPL/489/13-14 for Rs.9,00,417/- MPPL/843/14-15 for Rs.5,99,418/- and MPPL/014/17-18 for Rs.3,68,919/- as neither any invoices were raised nor any materials mentioned in the said invoices were supplied.

12. Th