The main legal point established is that the court will uphold findings and conclusions if they are as per the record and the applicable law, even if an alternative view is possible.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

C.M. No.26907/2017 (exemption)

1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

C.M. stands disposed of.

RFA No.668/2017 and C.M. No.26906/2017 (stay)

2. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the appellants/defendants impugning the judgment of the Trial Court dated 17.3.2017 by which the trial court has decreed the suit for recovery of Rs. 5,41,791/- along with interest on account of furniture items supplied by the respondent/plaintiff to the appellants/defendants and which were not paid for.

3. The facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff as proprietor of M/s KLS International supplied goods being office chairs, tables, sofa, cabinets to the appellant no.1/defendant no.1/company. The orders were placed and goods were supplied from August 2010 till January 2012 and with respect to which seven invoices were drawn as stated in para 2 of the judgment of the trial court. It was further pleaded by the respondent/plaintiff that some payment was made by the appellant no.1/defendant no.1 but there remained a balance due of Rs.5,41,791/- which was not paid. It was also pleaded that the appellant no.1/defendant no.1 had not issued C-Form qua bill no. 373 dated 24.9.2011. The last payment was pleaded to have been made by the appellant no.1/defendant no.1 on 7.4.2012 of the amount of Rs. 50,0000/-. A legal notice was served upon the appellants/defendants and the appellants/defendants sent a false reply dated 22.2.2015. The subject suit was thereafter filed seeking the balance due on account of goods supplied.

4. The appellants/defendants contested the case and pleaded as per their joint written statement that they are not liable to pay any amount because the invoices are forged in the name of the appellant no.1/defendant no.1. It was pleaded that appellant no.2/defendant no.2 was only the Manager of the appellant no.1/defendant no.1. The appellants/defendants pleaded that they never transacted with the respondent/plaintiff and suit was prayed to be dismissed.

5. After pleadings were complete, the trial court framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the suit? OPD

2. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of recovery as asked for in the plaint? OPP

4. If issue no.3 is decided in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled to the interest, if yes, at what rate? OPP

5. Relief.”

6. The main issue was issue no.3 and which in some manner linked to issue nos.1 and 2, and all of which pertain to entitlement of the respondent/plaintiff to the suit amount. While dealing with this issue, the trial court notes that the appellant no.2 as DW-1 in his cross-examination conceded that he had been corresponding with the respondent/plaintiff with e-mail ID of pradeep@multidecor.in (Ex.PW1/8). The appellant no.2/DW1 also admitted that he had made payment vide Ex.PW1/10. It is also stated by him in his cross-examination that emails Ex.PW/14 to Ex.PW1/16 were also sent by him to the respondent/plaintiff. The appellant no.2/DW-1 also admitted that it is he who started the company M/s Multi Décor India Pvt. Ltd. from the same premises where M/s Multi Décor was operating. It was also admitted by the appellant no.2/DW-1 that premises no.162, Block-E, Sector-11, Faridabad (Haryana) was his residential address. Trial court accordingly decreed the suit by making the following relevant observations:-

“(14) I have considered rival contentions and at the very Outset, I may observe that defendant no.2 Sh. Pradeep Choudhary has admitted the correspondence from his e-mail ID as well as those sent by his Accountant which are Ex.PW1/8 to Ex.PW1/16 which confirms that the plaintiff and the defendant were known to each other and had contacted each other.

(15) Secondly, the aspect of the company being run in two names I.e. M/s. Multi Decor and M/s. Multi Décor India Pvt. Ltd.