Bombay High Court
Vinergy International Pvt. Ltd vs Dimple Dineshbhai Shah on 7 December, 2016
Bench: K.R. Sriram
suit1947.08(2).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
SUIT NO.1947 OF 2008
Vinergy International Pvt. Ltd. ....Plaintiff
V/s.
Dimple Dineshbhai Shah ....Defendant
----
Mr.Mikhail Behl a/w Mr.Sachin Kudalkar i/by M/s.Madekar & Co. for
the plaintiff.
Mr. D.P.Desai a/w Mr.Jay Mehta i/by Law Frame for the defendant.
----
ig CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM,J
RESERVED ON : 22.11. 2016
RONOUNCED ON : 7.12.2016
P.C.:-
1 The plaintiff had filed this suit for a summary decree in
the sum of Rs.1,49,50,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. on the amount
of Rs.1,00,00,000/- from the date of filing of the suit till
payment/realization. The suit as filed is based on dis-honoured
cheque which was issued by the defendant for an amount of
Rs.1,00,00,000/-. By an order dated 16.2.2010, unconditional leave
to defend was granted by this court.
2 According to the plaintiff, the defendant had issued the
cheque as security in favour of plaintiff to secure payment in respect
K.J 1/20
suit1947.08(2).doc
of supply effected by plaintiff on M/s.Umesh Enterprises and its
customers. It is the plaintiff's case that some time in or around March,
2004 one Umesh Shah, Proprietor of M/s.Umesh Enterprises,
approached the plaintiff and requested plaintiff to supply Furnace Oil
and Light Diesel Oil to M/s.Umesh Enterprises as well as to the
customers of M/s.Umesh Enterprises and had agreed to make
payment to plaintiff on behalf of its customers. Accordingly, the
plaintiff supplied the goods from time to time to diverse customers of
M/s.Umesh Enterprises as well as to M/s.Umesh Enterprises and
initially payments were made by Umesh Enterprises. However,
subsequently, the cheques issued by M/s.Umesh Enterprises started
getting dishonoured and when the matter was taken up with
M/s.Umesh Enterprises, plaintiff was assured that payment towards
the said supplies would be effected through another group concern of
the said Umesh Enterprises, i.e., through the defendant herein who
was the brother of the said Umesh Shah and carrying on business as
Proprietor of Arihant Petrochem. In view of the assurances given by
the Proprietor of M/s.Umesh Enterprises, plaintiff supplied material to
its customers once again and the amount which was due and payable
to plaintiff as on 11.01.2005 was Rs.3,25,96,444/-.
K.J 2/20
suit1947.08(2).doc
The plaintiff has received part payments from M/s.Umesh
Enterprises as well in the sum of Rs.1,35,88,279/- (Rupees One Crore
Thirty Five Lakh Eighty Eight Thousand Two Hundred Seventy Nine)
and a sum of Rs.54,40,000/- from defendant and that left an amount
of Rs.1,35,68,165/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty Five Lakh Sixty Eight
Thousand One Hundred Sixty Five) due and payable .
3 It is the case of the plaintiff that as there was a large
amount of Rs.1,35,68,15/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty Five Lakh Sixty
Eight Thousand One Hundred Sixty Five) due and payable by
M/s.Umesh Enterprises to the plaintiff the plaintiff met the defendant
and Umesh Shah. During the meeting the defendant guaranteed
payments to be made by Umesh Shah Enterprises and in furtherance
thereto gave a cheque for Rs.1 crore as security. As the said Umesh
Enterprises did not pay the balance amount and since the defendant
had guaranteed the repayment of the dues of Umesh Enterprises and
its customers, the plaintiff presented the cheque for Rs.1 crore issued
by the defendant. The cheque was dishonoured on presentation.
According to the plaintiff, notice was issued to the defendant after
dishonour of the said cheque and a complaint was filed on or about
K.J 3/20
suit1947.08(2).doc
22.8.2005.
The present suit is instituted against the defendant in his
capacity as guarantor of the dues of his brother Mr.Umesh Shah.
4 In the written statement filed, the defendant took the
following defences :-
(i) There is no privity of contract between the defendant and plaintiff
and therefore the defendant is not liable to pay or agreed to discharge
the liability of Umesh Enterprises as the plaintiffs have not produced
any document to show that Umesh Enterprises have agreed to discharge
the liability of the plaintiffs ;
(ii) The plaintiffs have not joined Umesh Enterprises as necessary
party to the suit ;
(iii) The plaintiffs filed false and frivolous criminal case being
Criminal Case No.192 of 2005 against the defendant under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act in Magistrate Court at Jodhpur ;
(iv) The plaintiffs have failed to produce any document to show that
the defendant stood as a guarantor to discharge the liability of Umesh
Shah or Umesh Enterprises ;
(v) The defendant is not concerned with Umesh Enterprises. The
defendant is proprietor of Arihant Petrochem and the defendant has no
concern with the business of Umesh Enterprises ;
(vi) The defendant has not issued any cheque to the plaintiff. The
plaintiff have managed to get one blank cheque which they used by
forging the same. In fact, the plaintiff misused the blank cheque
and deposited the same in the Jodhpur bank account and filed false
criminal case against the defendant when the cheque got dishonoured ;
K.J 4/20
suit1947.08(2).doc
(vii) In the cross examination dated 27.9.2005 filed in the
Magistrate's Court at Jodhpur in the affidavit of evidence, Mr.Mukul
Agarwal of the plaintiff has admitted the fact that Umesh Enterprises
does not owe anything to the plaintiff.
5 On 30.9.2014 issues were settled, as reproduced in
paragraph no.22.
6 In order to prove its claim the plaintiff led evidence of one
witness Sunil Shukla (General Manager-Accounts) (PW 1). The
defendant did not lead any evidence. PW 1 filed two affidavits in lieu
of examination in chief, one dated 9.12.2014 and the other dated
12.10.2015. He has deposed on the basis that he was personally
conversant with the facts of the case, on the basis of personal
knowledge as well as records available with the plaintiff. Based on
the testimony of PW-1, documents produced by the plaintiff were
received in evidence and marked as Exhibits.
7 PW-1 has given testimony regarding an oral agreement
between the defendant, his brother Umesh Shah and the plaintiff,
whereby the defendant guaranteed to the plaintiff that in case of
default in payment by Umesh Shah, the defendant would discharge
K.J 5/20
suit1947.08(2).doc
the liability of Umesh Shah. PW-1 has stated that in furtherance of
the contract of guarantee the defendant also issued a cheque in favour
of the plaintiff bearing No.214672 (Exhibit P-8) as security for an
amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/-. In paras 6 & 11 of affidavit dated
9.12.2014 (Exh.P-1), PW-1 has stated as under :-
(6) .............I say that when the matter was taken up with the
said Umesh Shah of M/s.Umesh Enterprises, the defendant being
the brother of the said Umesh Shah in or about August 2004
promised me on behalf of the plaintiffs that in case of default in
payment by the said Umesh Shah, the defendant shall discharge
the liability of the plaintiff that and he would personally and be
jointly and severally liable to pay the plaintiffs, towards the
supplies effected by the plaintiffs to M/s.Umesh Enterprises and to
its customers would be made by the defendant..............
(11) I say that in furtherance of the guarantee and assurance that
the payment towards the supply effected by the plaintiffs to
M/s.Umesh Enterprises would be made by the defendant and to
secure the payment in respect of supplies effected by the plaintiffs
to Umesh Enterprises and its customers, the defendant also issued
and handed over to the plaintiffs a cheque bearing no.214672
drawn in favour of the plaintiffs and on Tamilnad Mercantile
Bank Ltd. Mandavi Branch, Mumbai for a sum of
Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) as security. I say that
the said cheque has been signed by the defendant as the proprietor
of the said M/s.Arihant Petrochem.
8 During cross-examination PW-1 was called upon to provide
particulars of the meeting during the course of which this agreement
was arrived at. A perusal of the notes of evidence of PW-1 recorded
and in particular the answers in cross-examination of PW-1 would
show that PW-1 has, to the question nos.20, 21, 81, 82, 83 & 84 put
K.J 6/20
suit1947.08(2).doc
to him, replied by providing the information. It will be useful to
reproduce the answers to these questions.
20............Per Commissioner :
Ans. :- Mr.Mukul Agarwal is the Director of the plaintiff company.
Whatever deal is structured by the company is handed over to
respective department namely marketing and accounts. Marketing
is concerned with day to day supply and I maintained the cash flow
as a result of which I am concerned with receivables. When there
were outstanding of Umesh Enterprises and the cheques issued by
Umesh Enterprises started bouncing. Mr.Umesh Shah brother of
Mr.Dimple Shah introduced us in the month of July 2004 that
Mr.Dimple Shah is liable to pay the outstanding supply to Umesh
and his customers. In that meeting, I was present along with my
Director Mr.Mukul Agarwal and Marketing G.M. Mr.Kamal Singh
Kandiyal. We discussed jointly to continue to supply and that
Mr.Dimple Shah is responsible to pay the outstanding liability on
behalf of Umesh Enterprise. That time he hand over the cheque in
the name of Sumex Organics Pvt. Ltd. and based on our exposure
agreed, I filled the amount of Rs.One Crore in front of Mr.Dimple
Shah.
Q.21. Just now in the above answer, you have said that my Director
Mr.Mukul Agarwal and Marketing G.M.Mr.Kamal Singh Kandiyal
were present. When did this meeting take place ?
Ans. : In the month of July 2004 in our office.
Q.81. Have you demanded payment either from Umesh Enterprises
and/or its alleged customers ?
Ans. : No.
Q.82. Is the alleged guarantee in writing ?
Ans. : No.
Witness volunteers : I have already mentioned in my earlier answer
that we have meet jointly in the month of July 2004 discussed and
decided to continue supply of material to Umesh Enterprises and its
customers and taken the cheque of Rs.1 crore as a guarantee from
Mr.Dimple Shah.
Q.83 : Where did the alleged meeting take place ?
Ans. : At our office i.e., 403, Arun Chamber, Tardeo Main Road,
Mumbai-400 034.
Q.84 : Was the alleged cheque handed over to you in the above
stated meeting ?
K.J 7/20
suit1947.08(2).doc
Ans. : Yes.
Witness volunteers : I have already mentioned in my earlier answer.
I was present in that meeting and collected the cheque after
finalizing the meeting.
As held in 1Madhuri Pukhraj Baldota Vs Omkarlal
Daulatram Banwat by eliciting these particulars the defendant
elicited positive statements which damaged the allegation of the
defendant namely that there was no contract of guarantee. The
defendant did not even put its affirmative case in this regard to the
witness and therefore must be deemed to have accepted the
correctness of the evidence. Further the defendant did not contravene
or rebut this positive evidence by leading its own evidence and hence
must be deemed to have accepted the correctness of the same. The
evidence proves that a contract of guarantee came into existence
between the plaintiff, the defendant and Umesh Shah in July 2004 at
which time the defendant issued the cheque bearing No.214672
drawn on the Tamilnad Merchantile Bank Ltd. (Exhibit P-8).
9 The testimony of PW-1 is not contradicted or undermined.
No suggestion is put to PW-1 that his deposition regarding the
1 2015(4) Mh.L.J.327
K.J 8/20
suit1947.08(2).doc
contract of guarantee and/or the further particulars he was called
upon to provide regarding the contract of guarantee were false.
Likewise no suggestion is put to PW-1 that there was no
supplies made to M/s.Umesh Enterprises or its customers. This is
extremely pertinent given the defence taken by the defendant in the
written statement. There is no cross-examination of PW-1 as to how
he came into possession of the aforementioned security cheque
(Exhibit P-8) though it is the case of the defendant that PW-1
misappropriated the said cheque. This is of significance given the
nature of the allegations raised by the defendant against the plaintiff
in paragraph 18 of the written statement. The failure to confront PW-
1 with the defendant's affirmative case must go against the defendant.
In 2A.E.G Carapiet Vs. A.Y.Derderian paras 8 & 9 read as under :-
"8. Failure to put the important and crucial part of the case to
the witnesses coming to prove testamentary capacity must be
held agaisnt the respondents. It is all the more so because the
case of witness Venkat Ramiah is that as early as in October,
1956 he had told this story at Poona to Mr.Aratoon and the
learned Counsel Mr.Ganguli. If that was so, then there can be
no doubt that this case would have been put to the doctors and
nurses who were being examined on commission in Poona itself.
It is also strange why then the Respondents did not have the
evidence of this witness Venkata Ramiah immediately on
commission at Poona and why he was kept up the sleeves to be
played as a last trump as a last witness in the case when the
entire evidence on the case of the propounder had been made
and concluded. Lastly this course is all the more reprehensible
here because witness Venkat Ramiah admits that on all his visits
2 AIR 1961 Cal 359
K.J 9/20
suit1947.08(2).doc
to the testator's room in the nursing home he found the wife
present (Q.81) and if that is so then if the wife was put that case
she might have denied but by keeping back this case from her,
she was denied the necessary opportunity to do so, leading to
failure of justice in this case.
9. The law is clear on the subject. Wherever the opponent has
declined to avail himself of the opportunity to put his essential
and material case in cross-examination, it must follow that he
believed that the testimony given could not be disputed at all. It
is wrong to think that this is merely a technical rule of evidence.
It is a rule of essential justice. It serves to prevent surprise at
trial and miscarriage of justice, because it gives notice to the
other side of the actual case that is going to be made when the
turn of the party on whose behalf the cross-examination is being
made comes to give and lead evidence by producing witnesses. It
has been stated on high authority of the House of Lords that this
much a counsel is bound to do when cross-examining that he
must put to each of his opponents witnesses in turn, so much of
his own case as concerns that particular witness or in which that
witness had any share. If he asks no question with regard to
this, then he must be taken to accept the plaintiff's account in its
entirety. Such failure leads to miscarriage of justice, first by
springing surprise upon the party when he has finished the
evidence of his witness and when he has no further chance to
meet the new case made which was never put and secondly,
because such subsequent testimony has no chance of being tested
and corroborated.
10 The defendant through their learned counsel submitted
that the cheque was misappropriated. But the admitted position is till
date there been no criminal complaint of cheating/misappropriation
filed by the defendant against any officer of the plaintiff. This belies
this allegation of defendant. It is also necessary to note that the cross-
suit filed by the defendant has been dismissed.
K.J 10/20
suit1947.08(2).doc
11 PW 1 has deposed that post the meeting in July, 2004
between M/s.Umesh Enterprises, the defendant and the plaintiff,
M/s.Umesh Enterprises placed several orders in respect of which the
plaintiff has made supplies and raised its invoices. PW-1 has also
stated that the defendant without demurrer or protest as to rate,
quality and/or quantity received the products. The invoices produced
by the plaintiff were received in evidence and marked as Exhibit P-11
(colly). The Judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Carapiet
Vs.Derderian (supra) was followed by a single judge of this court in
Harish Loyalka & Ors. Vs. Dilip Nevatia & Ors. Paras-9 & 10 read as
under :-
"9 Failure to put the important and crucial part of the case to the
witnesses coming to prove testamentary capacity must be held
against the respondents............
10 The law is clear on the subject. Wherever the opponent has
declined to avail himself of the opportunity to put his essential
and material case in cross-examination, it must follow that he
believed that the testimony given could not be disputed at all. It is
wrong to think that this is merely a technical rule of evidence. It is
a rule of essential justice. It serves to prevent surprise at trial and
miscarriage of justice, because it gives notice to the other side of
the actual case that is going to be made when the turn of the
party on whose behalf the cross-examination is being made comes
to give and lead evidence by producing witnesses. It has been
stated on high authority of the House of Lords that this much a
Counsel is bound to do when cross-examining that he must put to
each of his opponent's witnesses in turn, so much of his own case
as concerns that particular witness or in which that witness had
any share. If he asks no question with regard to this, then he
must be taken to accept the plaintiffs account in its entirety. Such
failure leads to miscarriage of justice, first by springing surprise
3 2015(1) Bom C.R.361
K.J 11/20
suit1947.08(2).doc
upon the party when he has finished the evidence of his witnesses
and when he has no further chance to meet the new case made
which was never put and secondly, because such subsequent
testimony has no chance of being tested and corroborated."
12 The defendant did not cross-examine PW-1 on the
invoices produced. There is no case put to the witness "denying
supply", "disputing price", "disputing quantity", "disputing quality"
etc. Furthermore the defendant calls upon the plaintiff to produce a
statement showing (a) the details of invoices relating to M/s.Umesh
Enterprises and (b) the details of invoices relating to the customers of
M/s.Umesh Enterprises. This statement was received in evidence and
marked Exhibit D-1. It is pertinent to note that though the meeting
before the commissioner was adjourned for the purpose of producing
this statement once it was produced, cross-examination was closed by
the letter dated 4.4.2016 (Exhibit D-2).
13 By not putting any of its affirmative case namely as regards
"the misappropriation of the cheque" and "the allegation of non
supply of goods" the defendant must be deemed to have accepted the
case of the plaintiff in its entirety.
14 The failure to cross-examine a witness on material portions
K.J 12/20
suit1947.08(2).doc
of his deposition must be taken as being truthful and credible. I find
support in (a) 4State of U.P. Vs. Nahar Singh & ors. Paras-13 & 14
read as under :-
"13 It may be noted here that that part of the statement of PW-1
was not cross-examined by the accused. In the absence of cross-
examination on the explanation of delay, the evidence of PW-1
remained unchallenged and ought to have been believed by the
High Court. Section 138 of the Evidence Act confers a valuable
right of cross-examining the witness tendered in evidence by the
opposite party. The scope of that provision is enlarged by
Section 146 of the Evidence Act by allowing a witness to be
questioned :
(1) to test his veracity ;
(2) to discover who he is and what is his position in life, or
(3) to shake his credit by injuring his character, although the
answer to such questions might tend directly or indirectly to
incriminate him or might expose or tend directly or indirectly to
expose him to a penalty or forfeiture.
14. The oft-quoted observation of Lord Herschell, L.C.in Browne
V. Dunn clearly elucidates the principle underlying those
provisions. It reads thus :
"I cannot help saying, that it seems to me to be absolutely
essential to the proper conduct of a cause, where it is intended to
suggest that a witness is not speaking the truth on a particular
point, to direct his attention to the fact by some questions put in
cross-examination showing that that imputation is intended to
be made, and not to take his evidence and pass it by as a matter
altogether unchallenged, and then, when it is impossible for him
to explain, as perhaps he might have been able to do if such
questions had been put to him, the circumstances which, it is
suggested, indicte that the story he tells ought not to be believed,
to argue that he is a witness unworthy of credit. My Lords, I
have always understood that if you intend to impeach a witness,
you are bound, whilst he is in the box to give an opportunity of
making any explanation which is open to him and as it seems to
me, that is not only a rule of professional practice in the conduct
of a case, but it is essential to fair play and fair dealing with
witnesses."
This aspect was unfortunately missed by the High Court when it
4 (1998 3 SCC 561
K.J 13/20
suit1947.08(2).doc
came to the conclusion that explanation for the delay is not at
all convincing. This reason is, therefore, far from convincing."
(b) In 5Amar Singh Vs. The State of Bihar the Apex Court held as
under :-
"where evidence clearly discloses that : (1) the truck was being
driven at a very high speed. (2) it was having no lights, (3) it
was being driven without the driver sounding the horn, and
(4) the visibility was very poor at that time, and there is no
cross-examination on the above crucial aspects, the finding
that the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving
of the truck is justified."
(c) In 6Mahavir Singh Vs. State of Haryana , paragraphs 16 & 17
read as under :-
"16. It is a settled legal proposition that in case the question is not
put to the witness in cross-examination who could furnish
explanation on a particular issue, the correctness or legality of the
said fact/issue could not be raised (Vide Atluri Brahmanandam v.
Anne Sai Bapuji and Laxmibai v. Bhagwantbuva)
17. In the instant case, we had gone through the cross-examination
of the witnesses who could furnish an explanation for the
discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant.
However, we came to the conclusion that the defence had never put
any question in these regards to the material witness who could
furnish the explanation for the same. So the chain of all the
circumstantial evidence is complete and no link is missing and the
accused persons had an opportunity to commit the murder of the
deceased."
15 The plaintiff has also produced circumstantial evidence,
5 (1971) 3 SCC 273
6 (2014) 6 SCC 716
K.J 14/20
suit1947.08(2).doc
which supports and corroborates its case. The plaintiff has tendered
in evidence a letter dated 4 th January 2005 (Post the contract of
guarantee which was arrived at in July 2004) (Exh.P-4) sent by fax
from Umesh Enterprises to the plaintiff (Plaintiff's earlier name was
Sumex Organics Pvt. Ltd.). As stated earlier, one Umesh Shah, the
brother of the defendant, was the sole proprietor of Umesh
Enterprises. When one reads Exh.P-4, P-5, P-6 and P-7 together, it
pertains to invoice No.LO6967 dated 4th January, 2005. Exh.P-4
provides excise details in respect of the supply covered by the invoice.
The invoices are received in evidence as Exhibit P-11 (colly). If the
statement (Exh.P-7) pertaining to the payments made by the
defendant to the plaintiff following his commitment to discharge his
brother's dues is seen, it can be noted that the defendant issued a
cheque dated 13th January, 2015 bearing No.214671 for Rs.4,00,000/-
which was adjusted towards payment of invoice LO6928, LO6947,
LO6966, LO6967 & LO6968. The statement (Exh.P-7) if perused in
comparison with the invoices would corroborate that likewise for
several other invoices the defendant issued cheques to discharge his
brother's liability. These also establish the agreement between the
plaintiff and the defendant.
K.J 15/20
suit1947.08(2).doc
16 The defendant has contended in the written statement that
the payments it had made the plaintiff were temporary loans. The
defendants however, did not confront PW-1 with this case in the
cross-examination. Furthermore the suit that was filed by the
defendant for the recovery of the said sums alleged to be loans has
been dismissed and has attained finality. The defendant did not also
lead any evidence in the present suit.
17 During the course of cross-examining PW-1 the defendant
put suggestions (Q.91 & Q.92) that M/s.Umesh Enterprises had repaid
the entire amount to the plaintiff and the goods were supplied to
customers of Umesh Enterprises, where Umesh Shah was only a
broker. Therefore, this gives an assumption of delivery of goods as
also a liability to pay. However, despite asserting this case and it
being denied, no evidence was produced by the defendant to show
discharge of dues by M/s.Umesh Enterprises.
18 The counsel for the defendant submitted that the fact that
the date on Cheque No.214672 for Rs.1 crore is 23 rd May, 2005
K.J 16/20
suit1947.08(2).doc
(Exhibit P-8) establishes that the Cheque was not issued at the
meeting held in July, 2004. This submission in my view is based on
assumptions and conjectures. The counsel assumes that the cheque
(Exhibit P-8) was not post-dated. The post dating of a cheque is a
matter that quite easily fits in with the case of the plaintiff that the
defendant stood security for the supplies to be made by the plaintiff to
M/s.Umesh Enterprises and its customers. It is extremely pertinent to
note that PW-1 was never asked to explain this so called anomaly.
19 The learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the
plaintiff did not produce the ledger books of M/s.Umesh Enterprises.
PW-1 has, during his course of cross-examination, in response to
Questions 61 to 63 stated that the statement (Exhibit P-5) was
prepared based on the ledger account of M/s.Umesh Enterprises as
maintained by the plaintiff. PW-1 was not called upon to produce the
same.
20 PW-1 has also, during his course of cross-examination, in
response to questions 73 to 76 pertaining to the statement (Exhibit P-
6) stated that though the ledger account of Arihant Petrochem was
K.J 17/20
suit1947.08(2).doc
not produced he was willing to produce the same. PW-1 was not
called upon to produce the statement on the next session of the
commission, instead was called upon to produce other documents
which are at Exhibits D-1 to D-5. There is no cross-examination of
any nature on the documents produced at Exhibit D-1 to D-5. The
defendant therefore, must be considered to have accepted the
correctness of the contents of the documents.
No evidence , however, was led by the plaintiff on the rate
of interest at 18% p.a. claimed on Rs.1 crore from 23.7.2015.
Therefore, this court is inclined to grant interest only from the date of
the suit until payment/realizations at 9% p.a. which is a reasonable
rate.
22 In the circumstances, I answer the issues as under :-
Nos. Issues Findings
(i) Whether the plaintiff proves that it Yes
is entitled to recover from the
defendant a sum as prayed for ?
(ii) Whether the plaintiff proves that a Yes
cheque for a sum of Rs.1 crore was
issued by the defendant on behalf
K.J 18/20
suit1947.08(2).doc
of M/s.Umesh Enterprises as a
security for the sale and supply of
furnace oil and light diesel oil
effected by the defendant upon
M/s. Umesh Enterprises as alleged
in para 7 and 11 of the plaint ?
(iii) Whether the defendant proves that No
the monies paid by the defendant
to the plaintiff were the advances
and not towards the purchase price
of goods sold and supplied by the
plaintiff to one M/s.Umesh
Enterprises and/or all its customers
(iv)
Whether the defendant proves that No
there is no privity of contract
between the parties to the suit as
alleged in para 4 of the Written
Statement ?
(v) Whether the defendant proves that No
the suit is not maintainable as
alleged in para 1 of the Written
statement ?
(vi) Whether the defendant proves that No
the plaintiff procured the subject
cheque by dishonest means as
alleged in para 18 of the Written
Statement ?
(vii) Whether the defendant proves that No
she never paid any or agreed to pay
any amount to the plaintiff on
behalf of M/s.Umesh Enterprises ?
(viii) What reliefs ? The suit is decreed in
the sum of Rs.1 crore
K.J 19/20
suit1947.08(2).doc
together with interest
thereon at 9% p.a.
from the date of the
suit until
payment/realization.
(ix) What costs ? The defendant to pay
a sum of Rs.1 lakh as
cost to the plaintiff.
23 Decree be drawn up accordingly. Suit stands disposed.
(K.R.SHRIRAM, J)
K.J 20/20
