Sanjay Chhotaria vs Amrit Kumar Buragohain
2025 Latest Caselaw 2347 Cal/2

Calcutta High Court

Sanjay Chhotaria vs Amrit Kumar Buragohain on 2 September, 2025

                 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                          (ORIGINAL SIDE)
                       COMMERCIAL DIVISION



Present:

The Hon'ble Justice Krishna Rao



                      G.A. (COM) No. 2 of 2025

                                    In

                     C.S. (COM) No. 820 of 2024



                          Sanjay Chhotaria

                                 Versus

                      Amrit Kumar Buragohain




           Mr. Shuvasish Sengupta
           Mr. Souvik Majumdar
           Ms. Anyapurba Banerjee
           Mr. Aurin Chakraborty


                                             ... For the plaintiff.


Hearing Concluded On : 21.08.2025

Judgment on          : 02.09.2025
                                         2


Krishna Rao, J.:

1. The plaintiff has filed the present application being G.A. (Com) No. 2 of

2025 in C.S. (Com) No. 820 of 2024 under Order XII, Rule 6 of the Code

of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying for judgment upon admission.

2. The plaintiff has filed the suit praying for a decree for a sum of Rs.

20,69,249.40 along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 2nd

February, 2021 till realization of the principal amount.

3. The plaintiff is engaged in the business of trading, selling and

supplying of HR Coil, MS Plate, HR Sheet and its allied products. As per

the request of the defendant, the plaintiff agreed to supply the above

mentioned materials with the conditions that the defendant would

provide a security deposit of Rs. 30,00,000/-, the defendant would

arrange of his own transportation and payment of the transporter shall

be borne by the defendant only, the defendant would clear the payment

through RTGS immediately upon receipt of the goods and in the event

of default of payment, the defendant is liable to pay interest at the rate

of 18% per annum from due date.

4. As per requirement of the defendant, the plaintiff has supplied the

following materials to the defendant on and from 23rd January, 2021 to

3rd February, 2021. The details of materials supplied to the defendant

are as follows:

SL. Date & Invoice Description of Quantity Rate Amount (in No. No. goods

Rs.)

1. 23/01/2021 H.R. COIL 26.690 57,000.00/ 17,95,169.40 CUN/28/20 8mm x 1500 MT -MT 20-21 wdth Cut in pcs (6300mm)

2. 03-02-2021 (i) M.S. PLATE 21.230 57,000 MT 12,10,110.00 CUN/30/20 (HSN - 7208) MT 20-21 36 MM x 2500

x 12500 x 2 PC 36MM x 2000 x 6300 x 1 PC

(ii) M.S. PLATE - 5.840 56,000 MT (HSN - 7208) MT

6MM 3,27,040.00

18,13,837.00 TOTAL -

3. CUN/31/20 HR SHEET 3.770 58,500 2,60,243.00 20-21 MT MT

5. The defendant by a letter dated 19th January, 2021 has submitted a

cheque being No. 236222 of State Bank of India, South Guwahati

Branch for a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- in favour of the plaintiff as a

security deposit towards the supply of the materials.

6. The materials supplied by the plaintiff were duly received by the

defendant and the plaintiff also raised invoices against the materials

supplied to the defendant. Though the defendant has received the

materials and invoices but the defendant failed and neglected to clear

the dues against the materials supplied to the defendant.

7. The defendant inspite of receipt of materials and invoices failed and

neglected to pay the amount, the plaintiff has lodged a complaint to the

Officer-in-Charge, Girish Park Police Station, Kolkata - 700006 and

accordingly, the police has initiated a case against the defendant for the

offence under Section 420/406/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

being F.I.R. No. 116 dated 5th June, 2022.

8. The plaintiff by a letter dated 15th July, 2022, requested the defendant

to pay a sum of Rs. 38,69,249.40 but inspite of receipt of the notice,

the defendant failed to clear the dues pending against the plaintiff. The

plaintiff has presented the security cheque issued by the defendant for

a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- with his banker at HDFC Bank on 24th

August, 2022 but the said cheque was returned with the endorsement

"Account Closed".

9. Upon return of the said cheque, the plaintiff has sent a notice for

initiation of case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,

1881 on 22nd September, 2022 but inspite of receipt of the notice, the

defendant failed to pay the said amount and accordingly, the plaintiff

has initiated a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments

Act, 1881 against the defendant before the Learned Court of

Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta.

10. During the pendency of the case, the defendant has paid part amount

of Rs. 10,00,000/- in two installments of Rs. 5,00,000/- each on 3rd

December, 2022 and 30th June, 2023. When the defendant came to

know that the police has also initiated a case against the defendant, the

defendant has filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail wherein

the defendant has acknowledged that the plaintiff has supplied

materials and raised invoices of Rs. 38,69,249/- and also admitted that

an amount of Rs. 28,639,249/- is due and payable by the defendant to

the plaintiff.

11. By a letter dated 4th September, 2023, the defendant informed the

plaintiff that the defendant has already paid an amount of Rs.

10,00,000/- and requested for an amicable settlement. Thereafter,

letters were exchanged between the parties and on 28th December,

2023, the defendant has further paid an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- to

the plaintiff. On receipt of the amount of Rs. 18,00,000/-, the plaintiff

has informed the defendant that an amount of Rs. 20,69,249/- is due

and payable by the defendant along with interest at the rate of 18% per

annum. By a letter dated 8th April, 2024, the plaintiff requested the

defendant to pay the balance amount along with interest. On receipt of

the letter of the plaintiff, the defendant has sent a reply on 24th April,

2024, stating the fact that the defendant has paid a sum of Rs.

18,50,000/- and rest are due and payable and is ready and willing to

pay the pending dues.

12. Mr. Shuvasish Sengupta, Learned Advocate representing the plaintiff

submits that inspite of assurance made by the defendant, the

defendant failed to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 20,69,249/- along

with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

13. Mr. Sengupta submits that the plaintiff before filing of the instant suit

has also initiated pre-institution mediation process but the defendant

failed to come forward to settle the issue and on receipt of Non-Starter

Report, the plaintiff has filed the present suit.

14. Mr. Sengupta submits that the defendant has unequivocally admitted

the dues pending against the plaintiff and thus there is no need to

adduce any evidence to prove the case and prayed for judgment upon

admission.

15. Though the defendant has not argued the matter but has filed affidavit-

in-opposition in G.A. (Com) No. 2 of 2025 wherein it is stated that upon

receipt of the quantities of materials, the defendant carried out

inspection thereof in presence of the plaintiff's appointed transporter/

agent and during inspection, the defendant discovered that huge

quantities of MS Plates/ HR Coils/ HR Sheets were defective and not as

per the specifications.

16. It is the further case of the defendant that such deficient quality and

substandard materials supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant, the

defendant requested the plaintiff for discussion and after negotiations,

it was mutually agreed upon the exact reduced price payable for the

total materials supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant taking into

account, the materials of substandard and deficient quality.

17. The defendant stated that on 30th June, 2023, the defendant has paid

Rs. 10,50,000/- to the plaintiff out of which Rs. 50,000/- is paid by

cash and Rs. 10,00,000/- is paid by way of bank transfer. The

defendant further stated that the defendant has paid Rs. 18,50,000/-

to the plaintiff and no amount is outstanding against the defendant.

18. Heard the Learned Counsel for the plaintiff, perused the pleadings and

the documents. The plaintiff has relied upon the affidavit affirmed by

the defendant in connection with CRM (A) No. 3050 of 2023 for grant

of anticipatory bail wherein the defendant has affirmed the affidavit

stating the following facts :

"I, Amrit Kumar Buragohain, son of Bhuban Chandra Buragohain, aged about 45 years, by occupation - businessman, residing at 54, Sashi Prabha Enclave, Sreenagar Path, Bylane - 03, Sreenagar, Dispur, Kamrup Metro, Assam - 781005, hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:

1) That I had established a business relationship with the de facto complainant, Sanjay Chhotaria, director of Chhotaria Udyog Nigam, pursuant to which we had entered into commercial transaction from 23.01.2021 wherein, the defacto agreed to supply iron and steel goods vide 3 invoices worth Rupees 38,69,249 (Rupees Thirty-Eight Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Forty Nine) on credit.

2) That pursuant to such commercial relationship, the de facto complainant had supplied the iron and steel goods vide 3 invoices worth Rupees 38,69,249/- (Rupees Thirty-Eight Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Forty Nine), against which I was supposed to make the payment to the tune of Rupees 38,69,249/- to the de facto complainant company.

3) That in lieu of the total payment of Rs.38,69,249/- against the supplied goods, I have already made a payment amounting to Rupees 10,00,000/-.

4) That the goods supplied by the de-facto complainant were of sub-standard quality and owing to the losses incurred in my business during the lockdown period I was unable to make the requisite payments, pertaining to which the de facto complainant filed a complaint being Girish Park PS. Case no. 116 of 2022 dated 05.06.2022 under section 420, 406, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also initiated a cheque bounce case by depositing a cheque without taking any written confirmation from me, which was a perquisite condition of depositing such undated cheque.

5) That against the police complaint made by the de facto complainant, I applied for an anticipatory bail before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta, being CRM(A)/3050/2023. The said matter was heard on 21.08.2023, and in consonance with the order of the Hon'ble High Court, I hereby solemnly affirm as follows:

A) That the above mentioned commercial transactions are admitted by me.

B) That in lieu of the said business transaction, now I owe Rs.28,69,249/- to the de facto complainant and I have complete Bonafide intentions to pay the requisite outstanding amount to the de facto complainant without being harassed into criminal proceedings. Under the said circumstances it is pertinent to mention that I am not shying away from clearing my outstanding dues.

C) That I hereby solemnly affirm this affidavit under the directions of this Hon'ble Court and once again pray for granting of Anticipatory Bail."

19. The plaintiff has further relied upon the order passed by the High Court

in C.R.M. (A) No. 3050 of 2023 dated 28th August, 2023 wherein it is

recorded that the Counsel for the defendant admitted the liability of Rs.

28,69,249/- with regard to the business transaction. It is also recorded

that the defendant sustained heavy loss during COVID period, he has

not recovered and the defendant proposes to pay the amount at least

within a period of six (6) months. On the basis of the said submission of

the defendant, the Hon'ble Court had granted anticipatory bail to the

defendant.

20. The defendant has not denied with regard to the business transaction

between the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant has only taken

the plea that the material supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant was

not as per the specification but the defendant has not disclosed any

document to establish that after supply of materials, the defendant has

informed the same to the plaintiff.

21. The defendant has also issued a security cheque of Rs. 30,00,000/- to

the plaintiff and when the defendant failed to pay the amount, the

plaintiff has presented the same for encashment but the said cheque

was dishonoured and returned to the plaintiff with the endorsement

"Account Closed".

22. In the case of Uttam Singh Duggal & Company Limited vs. United

Bank of India & Ors. reported in (2000) 7 SCC 120, wherein the

Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:

"12. As to the object of Order 12 Rule 6, we need not say anything more than what the legislature itself has said when the said provision came to be amended. In the Objects and Reasons set out while amending the said Rule, it is stated that "where a claim is admitted, the court has jurisdiction to enter a judgment for the plaintiff and to pass a decree on admitted claim. The object of the Rule is to enable the party to obtain a speedy

judgment at least to the extent of the relief to which according to the admission of the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled". We should not unduly narrow down the meaning of this Rule as the object is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment. Where the other party has made a plain admission entitling the former to succeed, it should apply and also wherever there is a clear admission of facts in the face of which it is impossible for the party making such admission to succeed."

23. In the present case, it is admitted that the defendant has placed the

purchased order upon the plaintiff and the plaintiff has supplied

materials to the defendant and the defendant has issued a cheque for a

sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- as security. On supply of materials, the plaintiff

has raised invoices. Inspite of receipt of the materials, the defendant

has not paid the amount. The plaintiff has presented the cheques for

encashment but the same was returned with the endorsement "Account

Closed". As the defendant failed to pay the amount after receipt of

materials, the plaintiff has made a complaint to the police authority

and after dishonoured of the cheque, the plaintiff has also filed a

complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,

1881. During pendency of the said cases, the defendant has paid Rs.

18,00,000/- leaving aside the balance amount of Rs. 20,69,249/-.

24. Considering the above, this Court finds that the defendant has

admitted the claim of the plaintiff and the defence which the defendant

has raised that the plaintiff has supplied materials below the

specifications but there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff has

supplied the materials below the specification. In the affidavit filed

before the Court at the time of grant of anticipatory bail, the defendant

has admitted that an amount of Rs. 28,69,249/- is due and payable

and will pay the same within six (6) months but the defendant has not

paid the balance amount.

25. In view of the above, the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree for a sum of

Rs. 20,69,249/- along with interest @12% per annum from 2nd

February, 2021 till the realization of the total amount.

26. The defendant is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 20,69,249/- along

with interest @12% per annum from 2nd February, 2021 till the

realization of the total amount.

27. G.A. (Com) No. 2 of 2025 is disposed of. Accordingly, C.S. (Com) No.

820 of 2024 is also disposed of. Decree be drawn accordingly.

(Krishna Rao, J.)