Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 2111
High Court of Delhi
G.S. SISTANI, J.
R.S. Solutions
Versus
Dan Blocks Brakes India Pvt Ltd.
CS(OS). No. 969 of 2014
Decided on : 16-09-2014
For the Plaintiff:Pardeep Dhingra, Sachin Sood, Advocates.
For the Defendant:S.K. Bhattacharya, Seema Sharma, Rekha Sharma, Advocates.
A strong and bona fide defense is required for granting leave to defend under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Headnote:
Overcharged Invoices - Recovery Suit - Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure - 8, 9, 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure - Summary: The court discussed the plaintiff's claim for recovery of Rs.41,91,111 under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendant sought leave to defend on grounds of overcharged invoices and poor quality of goods. The court analyzed the evidence and found the defendant's defense to be sham and not bona fide, leading to the dismissal of the application for leave to defend and a decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.41,91,111 under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendant sought leave to defend on grounds of overcharged invoices and poor quality of goods.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the defendant's defense to be sham and not bona fide, leading to the dismissal of the application for leave to defend and a decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Issues: The issues revolved around the plaintiff's claim for recovery and the defendant's defense based on overcharged invoices and poor quality of goods.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a strong and bona fide defense is required for granting leave to defend, and found the defendant's defense to be weak and sham.
Final Decision: The application for leave to defend was dismissed, and the suit [CS(OS) 969/2014] was decreed in favor of the plaintiff with pendente lite and future interest @ 10%.
G.S. Sistani, J. (Oral):
IA.No. /2014 (Leave to Defend)
1. Let the application be registered and numbered.
2. Plaintiff has filed the present suit under the provisions of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure for recovery of Rs.41,91,111 together with interest.
3. Summons in the suit were issued to the defendant in the prescribed form. Thereafter defendant entered appearance and an application for summons for judgments was filed by the plaintiff.
4. Present application has been filed by the defendant seeking leave to defend.
5. As per the plaint, the plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacturing and supplying industrial packaging materials such as Corrugated packing sheet, wrapping paper sheet, foam and other products used for packing. The plaintiff was established in the year 2003. The defendant is engaged in the business of export and import of automobiles and auto ancillaries. The plaintiff also supplied packaging materials to the defendant’s sister concern i.e. Roulunds Braking (India) Private Limited. The defendant approached the plaintiff to acquire packing materials/items i.e. 230X230mm and 300X250 mm corrugated sheets. The plaintiff informed the defendant of the possible market rates, which would be charged for supplying each item i.e. Rs.1.35P for 230X230mm corrugated sheets and Rs.1.55P for 300X250mm corrugated sheets. Rates were negotiated between the parties and mutually accepted at Rs.1.20 and Rs.1.35, respectively. After negotiations of the rates, the defendant placed the first purchase order bearing no.5700021785 dated 26.2.2011 in favour of the plaintiff.
6. It is the case of the plaintiff that as and when purchase orders were placed goods were supplied to the defendant. At no point of time the defendant raised any objection with respect to the rates fixed for supply of goods as agreed between the parties.
7. 4.50 lakhs corrugated packing sheets (230mmX230mm) at the rate of Rs.1.20 for each piece in the total sum of Rs.5.40 lakhs was supplied and delivered to the defendant. Similarly 3.00 lakhs corrugated sheets (300mmX250mm) at the rate of Rs.1.35 for each piece, amounting to a total sum of Rs.4,05,000/- was supplied and delivered to the defendant. In terms of purchase Order dated 26.2.2011 the defendant was to make the payment to the plaintiff within 45 days of delivery of the goods. On delivery of the packaging material, as per the purchase order, the plaintiff handed over invoice to the defendant, who duly acknowledged the receipt of the packaging material by affixing on the copy of the original invoice the seal of material received, which also bears date and signature of defendant’s representative. Defendant was also to provide Form H for the goods supplied to enable the plaintiff to get tax exemption from the Sales Tax Department as the goods supplied were against Form H. Reliance is placed on the invoice raised by the plaintiff, duly approved and acknowledged by the defendant. After successful delivery of goods in terms of first purchase order dated 26.2.2011 the defendant issued another purchase order bearing no.5700022162 dated 5.3.2011 for the supply of goods, as detailed below:
(i) 11,20,000 quantity of corrugated packaging sheet (230mmX230mm) at the rate of Rs.1.20 for each piece and amounting to a total of Rs.13,44,000/-.
(ii) 8,30,000 quantity of corrugated packaging sheet (300mmX250mm) at the rate of Rs.1.35 for each piece and amounting to a total of Rs.11,20,500/-.
8. The delivery of the packaging materials/ item in terms of the second purchase order of 5.3.2011 was also made, invoices were raised, the goods were acknowledged by the representative of the defendant. Thereafter, the plaintiff raised various invoices from time to time for amounts due arising out of the second purchase order. The defendant made bill to bill payment upto 31.3.2011.
9. Being satisfied with the material supplied by the plaintiff third purchase order No.5700024699 dated 15.4.2011 in favour of th
