Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 1043
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Phoenix International Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Dhampur Polymers Pvt Ltd. - Respondent
Regular First Appeal No. 366 of 2007
Decided on : 22-02-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Bimlesh K Singh, Adv., Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Adv.
The court emphasized the importance of proper evidence and documentation in determining the entitlement for recovery in a civil suit.
Headnote:
CPC - Recovery Suit - 1908 (CPC) - Section 96 - [OPD, OPP] - [Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court]
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a suit claiming a balance amount for supplies made to the appellant. The appellant contested the suit, claiming payments made and defective goods supplied.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit could not be decreed for the full amount claimed by the respondent due to lack of proper evidence of the ledger account. The court allowed the suit for a reduced amount with interest.
Issues: Barred by Limitation, Cause of Action, Suppressed Facts, Entitlement for Recovery, Interest Rate, Relief
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondent's suit should be decreed for a reduced amount based on the evidence presented and rejected the appellant's claims of defective goods due to lack of credible evidence.
Final Decision: The appeal was partially allowed, and the suit was decreed for a reduced amount with interest. Parties were left to bear their own costs.
Valmiki J. Mehta, J.
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 28.02.2007 by which the trial court has decreed the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for an amount of Rs. 15,23,093/- (suit amount) along with interest at 10% per annum.
2. The facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed the subject suit pleading that it supplied polythene bags and packing material to the appellant/defendant. It was pleaded by the respondent/plaintiff that as on 14.08.2001, there was a debit balance of Rs. 10,37,389/- due against the appellant/defendant. It was pleaded that the appellant/defendant had issued necessary C-Forms of the Central Sales Tax with respect to the respective invoices/bills under which supplies were made. The subject suit was filed claiming the balance as per the statement of account of Rs. 10,37,389/-, and to which interest was added, to claim the suit amount of Rs. 15,23,093/-.
3. The appellant/defendant contested the suit by filing written statement. Receipt of the material was not denied. Two main defences were raised by the appellant/defendant. Firstly, that three payments of Rs. 50,000/- each were made by the appellant/defendant to the respondent /plaintiff in terms of the cheque nos. 056236, 057728 and 057729 have not been accounted by the respondent/plaintiff. These cheques according to the appellant/ defendant were credited in the bank account of the respondent/plaintiff on 13.11.2000, 05.12.2000 and 12.12.2000. Consequently, the amount claimed which was of Rs. 10,37,389/-, was denied. Secondly, it was pleaded by the appellant/defendant that on account of the supply of defective goods, the appellant/defendant had raised debit notes, and therefore, the respondent/plaintiff is not entitled to the suit amount.
4. The following issues were framed in the suit:
(i) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by Limitation? (OPD)
(ii) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is without any cause of action? (OPD)
(iii) Whether the plaintiff has suppressed material facts qua the payment received and defective goods etc.? (OPD)
(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree for the recovery of Rs. 15,23,093? (OPP)
(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the interest on suit amount on future and pendente lite interest. If so, at what rate? (OPP)
(vi) Relief.”
5. On behalf of the respondent/plaintiff evidence was led through deposition of Sh. Satish Chandra, Director of the respondent/plaintiff. Sh. Satish Chandra deposed and proved the various invoices as Ex. PW 1/8 to Ex.PW1/53. The CST forms were proved as Ex.PW1/54 and Ex.PW1/55. The Legal Notice served upon the appellant/defendant was proved as Ex.PW1/56 and AD Card Ex.PW1/57. The appellant/defendant in its evidence sought to file and prove the debit notes as Ex.DW1/3 to Ex.DW1/7. These debit notes are dated 31.10.2001 and 30.11.2001. In support of these debit notes, the appellant/defendant filed and proved the statement of account of the respondent/plaintiff maintaining its books of account from 01.04.2001 to 31.3.2002. This statement of account was exhibited as Ex.DW1/2 and which contained three entries. The first entry is the amount due from the appellant/defendant towards the respondent/plaintiff being a sum of Rs. 8,68,656/- and thereafter there are two debit entries of Rs. 5,32,630/- and Rs. 3,26,163/-, and which are with respect to the amounts as stated in the debit notes Ex.DW1/3 to DW1/7. However, in the cross-examination of the witness of the appellant/defendant, Sh. G.K. Mishra, it was admitted by Sh. G.K. Mishra on 27.11.2006 that there were no signatures of the respondent/plaintiff which appear either on the statement of account (of the respondent/plaintiff in the books of account of the appellant/defendant) Ex.DW1/1 and Ex.DW1/2 or on the debit notes Ex.DW1/3 to DW1/7.
6. The payments of Rs. 50,000/- each by means
