Page 1 of 11

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Pronounced on: 16^th September, 2021

+

CM (M) 604/2020, CM APPL. 30745/2020 (by the petitioner

u/S 151 CPC for stay)

M/S. AUTO MOVERS

..... Petitioner

Through:

Ms. Deepika Mishra, Advocate

Versus

LUMINOUS POWER TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Pallav Saxena, Mr. Deepak

Chawla, Mr. Aruj Dhingra and Mr.

Neeraj Malik, Advocates

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON

J U D G M E N T

1.

This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India impugning the order dated 20^th February, 2020 passed by the

learned Additional District Judge-03 (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in

CS No.613329/2016.

2.

The petitioner is the defendant before the learned Trial Court. The

respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit against the petitioner/defendant for

recovery

of

a

sum

of

Rs.28,43,209.68/-.

In

the

suit,

the

respondent/plaintiff claimed that it was a well-known manufacturer

providing portfolio of solutions for packaged power, diversified

generation, electrical control and safety and energy optimisation. The

2021:DHC:2893

Page 2 of 11

petitioner/defendant was one of its several regional stockists and

distributors, who were appointed to procure/buy goods being traded by

the respondent/plaintiff and supply them to wholesalers and retailers of

the respondent/plaintiff in the market, who, in turn, would sell the same

to the consumers.

3.

It was stated by the respondent/plaintiff in the plaint that with

every supply of requisite number of goods effected by the

respondent/plaintiff to the petitioner/defendant, an invoice was raised and

on delivery of the goods, the invoice along with the driver’s copy of

delivery challan was duly signed by the petitioner/defendant, as a mark of

satisfaction.

4.

The respondent/plaintiff claimed that it had a running current

account with the petitioner/defendant against which a statement of

account/ledger was regularly maintained by it in the normal course of

business. No dispute had so far been raised by the petitioner/defendant

against the supply effected by the respondent/plaintiff. On the basis of

various invoices issued from 30^th November, 2010 till 30^th April, 2011, a

sum of Rs.55,55,335.10/- had been payable by the petitioner/defendant.

The respondent/plaintiff affirmed that till that date, it had received a sum

of Rs.24,72,616.42/- along with Rs.15,000/-, which was received by it

after a Legal Notice had been issued to the petitioner/defendant for

dishonour of cheques. Thus, a sum of Rs.28,43,209.68/- against several

invoices was due and payable by the petitioner/defendant. Accordingly,

the suit was filed.

5.

The petitioner/defendant has not disputed that it used to place

orders for supply of goods upon the respondent/plaintiff and that there

2021:DHC:2893

Page 3 of 11

were business transactions between the parties. The petitioner/defendant

denied owing any amount to the respondent/plaintiff as it had not ordered

for inverters, batteries, etc., which the respondent/plaintiff had sent to it

and when this was brought to the notice of the respondent/plaintiff, on

their instructions, the petitioner/defendant had sent the goods to another

distributor of the respondent/plaintiff located at Asansol, West Bengal.

However, the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner/defendant

was to the jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court to try the suit.

6.

It

was

claimed

that

the

orders

were

placed

by

the

petitioner/defendant, which was located at Suri, Birbhum, West Bengal,

to the regional office at Kolkata, where the respondent/plaintiff took

orders for supply of goods, which were then sent from the respondent’s

godown at Kolkata, to the petitioner/defendant at Suri, District Birbhum,

West Bengal. It was further submitted that the cheque stated to have been

dishonoured was actually a cheque given towards security