SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(Del) 163

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
M/S BHUSHAN STEEL & STRIPS LTD. ………….Plaintiff
Versus
M/S BHARTIYA LOHA UDYOG (P.) LTD. ………….Defendant
CS(OS) No.1734/1999, I.A.No.9113/2009 & Crl.M.A.No.12895/2009
Decided on: 10.2.2010

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Rajesh Banati & Mr. S.K. Aggarwal, Advocates for the plaintiff.
Mr. Pradeep Dewan & Mr. Rajiv Samaiyar,Advocates for the defendant.

Headnote:

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 29 Rule 1 - Pleadings - Pleadings can be signed or verified on behalf of the corporation by a director of the corporation as well - Procedural defects which do not go to the root of the matter should not be permitted to defeat a just cause. There is sufficient power in the Courts, under the Code, to ensure that injustice is not done to any party who has a just case as for as possible a substantive right should not be allowed to be defeated on account of a procedural irregularity which is curable.

Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 19 - Limitation - Payment by cheque satisfies the requirement of Section 19 - Dishonoring of a cheque would not result in extinguishing the liability of the debtor to the extent of the amount of the cheque; the cheque remains an effective payment for the purpose of Section 19 - Cheque dated 17.4.1997 was a valid acknowledgment made by the defendant of his liability and was well within the period of limitation - Suit decreed for Rs. 69,41,115.90 with future interest @ 9% p.a.

JUDGMENT

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

1. The present suit has been filed for recovery of Rs.80,47,868/-. The plaintiff is M/s Bhushan Steel & Strips Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act 1956, having its office at Plot No.23, Site IV, Industrial Area, Shahibabad, Ghaziabad (U.P.). The suit has been filed through its law officer Mr.Rishipal, authorized vide power of attorney dated 18.5.1999 to sign and verify the pleadings on behalf of the plaintiff.

2. Defendant M/s Bhartia Loha Udyog Pvt. Ltd. is also a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, having its office at Z-216/1, Loha Mandi, Naraina, New Delhi.

3. Plaintiff at the request of the defendant supplied C.R. Coils/Sheets & G.P. Sheets of various sizes to the defendant from time to time and various bills were raised by the plaintiff; a running account was maintained by the parties. Account payments received by the plaintiff from the defendant were given due credit in the books of the plaintiff. Books of account of the plaintiff were regularly audited and maintained in the ordinary course of the business.

4. As per the accounts of the plaintiff, a sum of Rs.54,65,445.60 became due from the defendant in terms of the statement of account filed along with plaint annexure P-1. This statement of account is for the periods 1.4.1994 to 31.3.1995, 01.4.1995 to 31.03.1996 and 01.4.1996 to 31.3.1997.

5. On 17.4.1997 an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was sent by the defendant vide cheque no.072375 to the plaintiff to clear the aforestated part outstanding amount. The said cheque was dishonoured by the banker of the defendant with the remark “payment stopped by the drawer”. Criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the N.I.Act) was filed by the plaintiff which is pending adjudication in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Ghaziabad.

6. Legal notice dated 12.4.1999 was sent by the plaintiff to the defendant asking him to clear his outstandings along with interest @ 21% per annum. However, payments were not made. Plaintiff has claimed the aforestated amount with interest; interest is calculated at Rs.25,82,422.40 @ 21% per annum on the principal figure of Rs.54,65,445.60. Interest has been claimed from 17.4.1997 till 17.7.1999.

7. In the written statement defendant has taken preliminary objections; the plaint has not been signed, verified by a duly authorized person; there is no cause of action as the accounts between the parties stood settled in April 1996 and there had been no transaction between the parties after 11.4.1996.

8. It is stated that the plaintiff has suppressed material facts; plaintiff had been allowed to use the premises of the defendant situated at Naraina; defendant is dealing in sale and purchase of iron sheets and the parties had good business dealings with one another. Disputes arose with the plaintiff when the plaintiff started charging higher rates as compared to the competitors in the market but on assurances of the plaintiff, the defendant continued to purchase the material from others on the premise that the loss would be compensated by the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff failed to adhere to his business dealings, the dealings between the parties stopped. Suit is also bad for mis-joinder of the parties.

9. On merits, it has been reiterated that the accounts between the parties had been settled in April 1996 and after 11.4.1996 there had been no dealings between the parties. No amount is due and recoverable from the defendant.

10. It is stated that the cheque bearing no.072375 dated 17.4.1997 was never issued to the plaintiff by the defendant. At the time of settling the accounts in September 1995, the defendant gave ten cheques to the plaintiff; out of the ten cheques nine cheques were encashed up to November 1995 and it was represented by the plaintiff that cheque no.072375 had been lost and was not traceable by the plaintiff. On the advice of



















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top