SERVOTECH ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD vs ASHOKA ENTERPRISES (INDIA)

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2018 Supreme(Del) 2771

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J.
SERVOTECH ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD - Appellant
Versus
ASHOKA ENTERPRISES (INDIA) & ORS - Respondents
RFA No.786 of 2018
Decided on : 17-09-2018

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Sanjeev Bahl, Ms. Madhur Dhingra, Ms. Harleen Kaur and Mr. Apoorva Bahl, Advocates

Headnote:
CPC - Recovery Suit - Sec. 96 of CPC - [Issue No.5 : Has the plaint been duly signed and verified by an authorised person. If not, the effect thereof? OPP] - [Sec. 69 of The Partnership Act, 1932] - The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs as the Purchase Orders and Statement of Account were proved. The court also rejected the argument that the suit was not validly filed due to the partnership firm not being registered, citing Sec. 69 of The Partnership Act, 1932. The court held that the suit was within limitation as per Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963 once the account is a non-mutual account. The court also referred to relevant case laws to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:

The suit was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for recovery of Rs. 52,16,324, of which Rs. 28,29,661 was the principal amount and the balance was the claim towards interest. The appellant/defendant contested the suit, claiming that the bills relied upon by the respondents/plaintiffs were forged and fabricated.
Finding of the Court:

The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, citing the proof of Purchase Orders and Statement of Account. The court also rejected the argument that the suit was not validly filed due to the partnership firm not being registered, and held that the suit was within limitation as per Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963 once the account is a non-mutual account.
Issues: The issues framed by the trial court included entitlement to recovery, limitation, false and fabricated bills, non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties, verification of the plaint, and proper valuation of the suit for court fee and jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the proof of Purchase Orders and Statement of Account, the interpretation of Sec. 69 of The Partnership Act, 1932, and the application of Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Final Decision: The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs and dismissed the appeal.

JUDGMENT :

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

CAVEAT No. 856/2018

1. Since counsel for the caveator(s) has entered appearance, the caveat stands discharged.

C.M. Appl. No. 37851/2018 (for exemption)

2. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

C.M. stands disposed of.

RFA 786/2018 and C.M. Appl. No. 37852/2018 (for stay)

3. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant in the suit impugning the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 26.07.2018 by which the trial court has decreed the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs/sellers of electrical goods for a sum of Rs. 28,29,661/- along with interest at 12% per annum from 14.02.2011 being the date of the Legal Notice and till the recovery of the amount due.

4. Respondents/Plaintiffs filed the subject suit for recovery of Rs.52,16,324/-, of which an amount of Rs.28,29,661/- was the principal amount, and the balance amount of the suit was the claim of the respondents/plaintiffs towards interest. Respondent no. 1/Plaintiff no. 1 is a partnership firm of which respondent nos. 2 and 3/defendant nos. 2 and 3 are partners. The respondents supplied electrical goods to the appellant/defendant. As per the respondents/plaintiffs, they were maintaining a running account and as per this account, the principal amount of Rs. 28,29,661 was due as on 31.03.2010. The last payment received by the respondents/plaintiffs was on 15.02.2011 vide cheque of Rs. 27,500/- which was credited to the account of the appellant/defendant. Respondent/plaintiff also pleaded that the appellant/defendant company, as per its balance sheet alongwith the profit and loss account as on 31.03.2010, admitted the appellant’s/defendant’s liability to the respondents/plaintiffs. The subject suit was filed after serving the Legal Notices dated 14.02.2011 and 09.02.2012 which did not yield the desired result.

5. Appellant/Defendant contested the suit and pleaded that the bills relied upon by the respondents/plaintiffs are forged and fabricated. Appellant/defendant admitted to business dealings between the parties and also the last payment by cheque for a sum of Rs. 27,500/-. It was however denied by the appellant/defendant that there was a running, open, mutual and current account and that payments were made as per the bills. The suit was therefore prayed to be dismissed.

6. After pleadings were complete, trial court framed issues and parties led evidence, and these aspects are recorded in paras 4 to 6 of the impugned judgment, and these paragraphs read as under:-

“4. Upon completion of the pleadings, on 25.11.2013 the following issues were framed:

1. Are the plaintiffs entitled to a decree for recovery of Rs.52,16,324/- along with pendente lite and future interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till realization? OPP

2. Is this suit barred by limitation? OPD

3. Have the Plaintiffs filed false and fabricated bills, as alleged by the Defendant? OPD

4. Is the suit bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties? OPD

5. Has the plaint been duly signed and verified by an authorised person. If not, the effect thereof? OPP

6. Has the suit been properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPP

7. Relief.

5. In support of his case, the plaintiff has examined 2 witness which are as under:-

(1) PW-1 Mr. Siddharth Ladha - one of the Partners of the plaintiff firm. In lieu of his examination-in-chief he has deposed by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A & additional affidavit Ex.PW1/1A wherein he has reiterated the case set forth in the plaint and has relied upon the following documents:

i. Ex.PW1/1 - Copy of acknowledgment of Registration of Firms (OSR).

ii. Ex.PW1/2 - Copy of Form-A (OSR).

iii. Ex.PW1/3 - Copy of Form-V (OSR)

iv. Ex.PW1/4- Copy of Retirement Deed dated 30.03.2011 (OSR).

v. Ex.PW1/5 - Copy of Partnership Deed dated 01.04.2011 (OSR).

vi. Ex.PW1/6, Ex.PW1/8, Ex.PW1/10, Ex.PW1/12, Ex.PW1/14, Ex.PW1/15, Ex.PW1/17, Ex.PW1/19, Ex.PW1/21, Ex.PW1/23, Ex.PW1/25, Ex.PW1/