Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 2835
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
M/s Laxmi Narayan Builders & Suppliers – Appellant
Versus
M/s Ganpati Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
RFA No. 892 of 2018
Decided On : 30-10-2018
For the Appellant : Mr. Vijay Waghey.
The legal point established is that the statement of account for recovery of money must be an open, mutual and current account as required by law, and the claimant must prove the claim with adequate evidence.
Headnote:
CPC - Recovery of Money - 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - [96 of CPC] - The court dismissed the suit for recovery of Rs. 25,42,823/- filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the respondent/defendant as the appellant/plaintiff failed to prove the claim of Rs. 23,98,891/- and the statement of account relied upon was not an open, mutual and current account as required by law. The appellant/plaintiff also failed to explain discrepancies with respect to the invoices and their dates.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 25,42,823/- claiming to have supplied building construction material to the respondent/defendant. The trial court dismissed the suit for failure to prove the claim.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant/plaintiff failed to prove the claim of Rs. 23,98,891/- and the statement of account relied upon was not an open, mutual and current account as required by law. The appellant/plaintiff also failed to explain discrepancies with respect to the invoices and their dates.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant/plaintiff proved the claim of Rs. 23,98,891/- and the adequacy of the statement of account as evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant/plaintiff failed to prove the claim and the statement of account relied upon was not in compliance with the legal requirements.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
CM No. 45382/2018 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
CM stands disposed of.
CM No. 45383/2018 (delay in re-filing)
For the reasons stated in the application, delay in re-filing is condoned.
CM stands disposed of.
RFA No. 892/2018
1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the plaintiff in the suit impugning the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 03.05.2018 by which the trial court has dismissed the suit for recovery of Rs. 25,42,823/- filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the respondent/defendant. The said suit amount was claimed on account of the appellant/plaintiff claiming to have supplied building construction material to the respondent/defendant.
2. As per the suit plaint, paras 5 to 13 illustrate the cause of action, and in order to show that the plaint was miserably lacking and failed to make the minimum averments as required to establish the existence of a cause of action in a suit for recovery of money for goods supplied. These paras 5 to 13 are reproduced as under:-
“5. That at the time of making negotiations with the plaintiff, the defendants directors Sh. Abhishek Gupta and his father Mr. Ajay Gupta asked the plaintiff to deposit the cash of Rs. 7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Only) as security amount to be deposited with them to ensure the continuous supply of quality material as per their desire.
6. That the plaintiff along with his father namely Sh. Bhopal Singh had paid a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- (Rs. Seven Lakhs Only) in cash as security amount to Sh. Abhishek Gupta on 10-02-2010 in the presence of Mr. Ajay Gupta and Mr. Bhopal Singh and one Mr. Jugendra Singh Solanki S/o Sh. G.R. Singh R/o D-115, Pocket-D, L.I.G. Flats, GTB Enclave, Delhi-110092.
7. That the directors of the defendant company namely Sh. Abhishek Gupta and Sh. Ajay Gupta had got signed and got thumb impression on some papers from the plaintiff as well as Sh. Bhopal Singh purportedly to be the contract papers relating to the supply of building material by the plaintiff. Those papers were including some blank letter heads of the defendant company.
8. That the defendant has placed orders for supply of building materials time to time and the plaintiff has supplied the same as and when required by the defendant and the defendant has never raised any objection in respect of the building material supplied to the defendant and the plaintiff was maintaining a regular account with the defendant.
9. That the plaintiff was raising the bills against the supply of the building material and the defendant was making the part payments in their account as maintained by the plaintiff in due course of business.
10. That the plaintiff has supplied the building material to the defendant upto September 2012. The defendant has assured the plaintiff to pay the complete price of each and every delivery of building material at the time of delivery but the defendant has failed to make the payment at the time of delivery.
11. That after many requests the defendant has issued three cheques to the plaintiff bearing No. 955014 dated 10-3-2013 for Rs. 2,41,099/- and No. 955016 dated 15-3-2013 for Rs. 5,00,000/- and No. 955017 dated 21-3-2013 for Rs. 5,00,000/- all drawn on Punjab National Bank, Delhi but the all three cheques were dishonoured as such the plaintiff filed a criminal complaint under section 138 N.I. Act against the defendant.
12. That after that the defendant has made the payment of cheques amount and further failed to make the payment of balance due amount even after the several requests has made by the plaintiff as well as his father.
13. That the defendant is also liable to pay principal amount i.e. Rs. 23,98,891/- and interest @ 18% per annum from 11-1-2014 to 10-5-2014 i.e. Rs. 1,43,932/- as such the defendant is liable to pay a total sum of Rs. 25,42,823/- till 10-5-2014.”
3. When a suit is filed for recovery of money for material supplied, either the plaint will set
