Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 251
High Court of Delhi
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
Savina Sharan – Plaintiff
Versus
Babu Haleem Handicrafts – Defendant
CS (OS) No. 2417 of 2009
Decided On : 09-02-2015
For the Plaintiff:Piyush Aggarwal, Advocate.
The need for reliable evidence and compliance with statutory requirements, such as the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, in civil proceedings to support a claim for recovery.
Headnote:
Recovery - Business Dealings - Delhi High Court - [Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Section 73; Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 - Section 34] - The court discussed the plaintiff's claim for recovery based on business dealings and purchase orders, the agreement for deduction in case of delay, and the evidence presented including purchase orders, challans, and statement of account. The court found the evidence presented by the plaintiff to be unreliable and not meeting the requirements of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act. Consequently, the court dismissed the suit.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a proprietary concern, claimed a sum of Rs.28,79,302 from the defendant for supply of goods and alleged delay in delivery, leading to a claim for deduction and interest. The defendant denied any amount being recoverable and alleged malafide filing of the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence presented by the plaintiff to be unreliable and not meeting the requirements of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act. Consequently, the court dismissed the suit.
Issues: Territorial jurisdiction, entitlement to recovery, entitlement to interest, relief
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for reliable evidence to support a claim, particularly in civil proceedings where the balance of probabilities is considered. The court also highlighted the requirements of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act and the need for certified statements of account. The unreliable nature of the evidence presented by the plaintiff led to the dismissal of the suit.
Final Decision: The suit was dismissed, and parties were directed to bear their own costs.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
1. Present suit is a suit for recovery. Plaintiff Savina Sharan has claimed a sum of Rs.28,79,302/- from the defendant.
2. The plaintiff is stated to be a proprietary concern having business dealings with the defendant since the year 2004. Plaintiff had been supplying material to the defendant (Boll Bottle Stoppers) and on account payments were being made. Purchase orders had been placed upon the defendant on 30.4.2007, 30.5.2007; the articles were to be delivered by 30.6.2007. It was agreed between the parties that in case job work order was not complied with within the stipulated period, Re.1.00 per piece per day will be deducted from the bill amount payable by the plaintiff and this was so stated in the work order. Total amount calculated and deductible from the bills of the defendant is Rs.14,32,530/-.
3. The plaintiff had been making advance payments to the defendants on several occasions for supply of goods. Parties were maintaining statement of account in the regular course of the business. Balance payable by the defendant to the plaintiff was forwarded year to year. In the year 2006-07 a sum of Rs.19,956/- was due and payable; in the year 2007-08 balance amount payable by the defendant was Rs.21,64,889/-. Earlier also the defendant was not able to supply the goods to the plaintiff in time and the plaintiff was forced to send the goods by Air for which he incurred expenses of Rs.3,21,309/- which amount was debited vide debit note dated 18.9.2006. The defendant executed two receipts dated 18.9.2006 and 18.12.2006 in lieu of balance amount payable by him. In spite of various repeated letters and thereafter the legal notice dated 24.02.2009, the defendant failed to pay the due amount. A total claim of sum of Rs.28,79,302/- has been made of which Rs.21,64,889/- is the balance outstanding as on 23.11.2007; interest @ 18% per annum has been claimed w.e.f. 23.11.2007 to 23.9.2009 thus totaling a sum of Rs.28,79,302/-.
4. Written statement was filed by the defendant. It was denied that any amount was recoverable from the defendant; the present suit is a clear abuse of the process of law. There is no cause of action. It is the defendant who had to recover a sum of Rs.14,32,530/- from the plaintiff. The plaintiff had put pressure upon him and took a writing from the defendant on 18.9.2006 that no amount was due and payable. The defendant is an illiterate person. Plaintiff had placed an order on 09.3.2007 which was to be executed by 30.6.2007. There was no agreement between the parties that Re.1 per piece would be deducted in case of delay. The defendant had completed the order and delivered it to the plaintiff on 09.7.2007. Plaintiff made only part payments. In spite of demands made by defendant payments were not made. A debit note was raised against the defendant on 04.10.2010 in the sum of Rs.14,32,530/-. Plaintiff agreed to withdraw this debit note and assured to make the payment due to the defendant. The plaintiff made a payment of Rs.7,50,000/- to the defendant on 23.11.2007. The defendant has repeatedly been asking for the payment of Rs.14,32,530/-, Rs.7,50,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- and to avoid payment this false suit has been filed. No amount is due and payable to the plaintiff. The suit is malafide.
5. Replication was filed reiterating the averments made in the plaint and denying the averments made in the replication.
6. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:
(i) Whether this court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate on the subject matter of the suit? OPD
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.2,.79,302/- or any portion thereof? OPP
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the amount found due and payable by the defendant? IF so, on what amount, at what rate and for what period? OPD
(iv) Relief.
7. Plaintiff in support of his filed affidavit by way of evidence of PW-1 Savina Sharan. She was subjected to a cros
