Delhi High Court
M/S Rajendras??? (India) Ltd. vs Shri Devinder Kumar Jain on 18 February, 2011
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No. 354/2001
% 18th February, 2011
M/S RAJENDRAS‟ (INDIA) LTD. ...... Appellant
Through: None.
VERSUS
SHRI DEVINDER KUMAR JAIN ...... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This matter is on the „Regular Board‟ of this Court since
3.1.2011. Today, this matter is effective item No.8 on the „Regular Board‟.
It is 3.10 P.M. and no one has chosen to appear for the parties. I have
therefore perused the record and am proceeding to dispose of the appeal.
2. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal under
Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned
judgment and decree dated 16.5.2001 whereby the suit of the
appellant/plaintiff for recovery of Rs.2,53,884/- was dismissed against the
respondent/defendant, who was the ex-employee of the appellant, and to
RFA No. 354/2001 Page 1 of 4
whom the appellant is alleged to have given monies towards the imprest
account for incurring day to day expenditure in the business of the
appellant which was of building and construction. The relevant issue as
decided by the trial Court is issue No.1 and findings of which are
contained in paras 6 to 9 of the impugned judgment and decree which
read as under:-
"6.PW1 Om Prakash has produced a statement Ex.P2
which contains the details of imprest money paid to the
defendant from time to time. He has also produced
vouchers Ex.P-3 to P12. He has testified that all these
vouchers are signed by the defendant. On cross-
examination he admits that the vouchers Ex.P-5 is signed
by one another person besides the defendant. He also
admits that the voucher Ex.P-9 does not bear signatures of
the defendant. He has expressed inability to say if the
amount of voucher Ex.P-7 was given to one Virender
Kumar. Similarly, he has not been able to explain the
various details given in vouchers Ex.P10 to P36. Thus, the
very authenticity of the statement Ex.P-2 becomes
doubtful.
7. The purpose of giving imprest money must be
clearly understood. During the progress of construction,
several exigencies arise when money is immediately
needed to keep the work going. It is in order to meet such
exigencies that some amount is given as imprest to the
person supervising the progress of work so that money is
readily available and the progress of work is not
obstructed. Admittedly, the defendant was supervising
many projects of the plaintiff. If some money was given to
him as imprest, he was supposed to utilize it as and when
the immediate necessity arose. If he had not shelled out
the money as and when the necessity arose, the progress
of the work would have been adversely affected. The
plaintiff has adduced no evidence whatsoever to show that
the progress of any project was in any manner obstructed
for want of readily available money.
RFA No. 354/2001 Page 2 of 4
8. The statement Ex.P-2 shows that petty amount
varying from Rs.150/- to Rs.10,000/- were given to the
defendant from time to time over a span of more than two
years beginning from 11.01.96. PW1 Om Prakash admits
on cross examination that the next imprest is given only
after the imprest money given earlier is spent or
accounted for. This admission corroborates the testimony
as DW1 Davender Kumar Jain to the effect that the next
imprest was given to him only when the money given
earlier was almost exhausted. It does not appeal to
reason at all the plaintiff when on giving imprest money to
the defendant for more than two years without taking
accounts for the amounts given earlier.
9. DW1 Davender Kumar Jain has stated that his services
were terminated by Rajender Jain on 10.02.98. This part of
this statement has not been challenged in
crossexamination and, therefore, the factum of
termination of services shall be deemed to have been
admitted. On the other hand, PW1 Om Prakash does say
in his examination in chief that the defendant did not
report for duty after 10.02.98 and absented without
information. On cross-examination, however, he has not
taken courage to deny the suggestion that the services of
the defendant were terminated by Rajender Jain. Thus,
the evidence shows that the defendant had not absuptly
abandoned the services as the plaintiff would like me to
believe." (Emphasis added)
3. The aforesaid findings and conclusions of the trial Court are
unexceptionable because the trial Court has rightly held the
respondent/defendant not liable because various vouchers were either not
signed by the respondent or bore no signatures at all. The witness of the
appellant also failed to explain the details in the alleged vouchers. The
trial Court has also rightly noted that the small amounts given for a span
of more than two years would not have been given unless the earlier
amounts were spent, and in fact, the witness of the appellant Sh. Om
RFA No. 354/2001 Page 3 of 4
Parkash who appeared as PW-1 admitted in his cross-examination that the
next imprest amount was given only after earlier imprest money given
was spent or accounted for. The stand of the appellant was found to be
false that the respondent unilaterally abandoned the service whereas it
was found as a matter of fact that it was the appellant who terminated the
service of the respondent.
4. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or perversity in
the impugned judgment and decree which calls for interference by this
Court. The appeal is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their
own costs. Trial Court record be sent back.
FEBRUARY 18, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
