Delhi High Court
Shri D.P.Aggarwal vs J.K.Corporation Limited on 17 January, 2011
Author: Indermeet Kaur
A-6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 17.01.2011
+ RSA No.184/2007
SHRI D.P.AGGARWAL ...........Appellant
Through: Mr.N.S.Dalal & Mr.Devesh Pratap Singh
Advocate.
Versus
J.K.CORPORATION LIMITED ..........Respondent
Through: Mr.Sumesh Gandhi, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Yes
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1. This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated
29.3.2007 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge
whereby the suit of the plaintiff J.K.Corporation had been decreed
for Rs.90,365.23 along with interest @ 12% per annum.
2. Plaintiff J.K.Corporation had dealings with the respondent
firm. The plaintiff was making supply of various grades of cement
on credit basis from time to time to the defendant. Parties were
maintaining a running account. It is not disputed that the parties
had dealings with one another. The contention of the plaintiff was
that for the various goods supplied to the defendant the defendant
has not made payments. A sum of Rs.90,365.23 was still due and
payable from the defendant which in spite of legal notice was not
paid.
3. In the written statement, it was not disputed that the parties
had dealings with one another. Contention of the defendant is that
no amount was due and payable to the plaintiff. A sum of
Rs.1,14,387/- had been paid by the defendant to the plaintiff; all
accounts is clear by the accounts between the parties stood settled.
4. Trial judge had framed four issues. Plaintiff in support of his
case had examined three witnesses and defendant had examined
himself. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence the suit of
the plaintiff was decreed. The impugned judgment had endorsed
this finding.
5. On behalf of the appellant, it has been urged that the
findings in the impugned judgment are perverse and call for
interference even at the second appellate stage. Attention has
been drawn to the testimony of PW-1 wherein in his cross-
examination he had admitted that prior to delivery of material an
order was placed upon the defendant; Ex.PW-1/1 to Ex.PW-1/3
(which are the invoices) do not bear the signature from any person
from their transport company. It is pointed out that in the absence
of order/agreement have being placed on record by the plaintiff
and the admission of PW-1 that the invoices had not been signed by
any person on their behalf these documents could not have been
read in evidence. Attention has been drawn to the version of PW-2
wherein he had admitted that there is no document on record
showing that the plaintiff had appointed M/s Rajgaria Enterprises
as their sale organizer cum handling agent for Delhi; PW-2 and
PW-3 have both admitted that there was an agreement between the
parties for supply of goods. It is pointed out that this agreement
has not been produced on record. PW-1 has also admitted that the
invoices were not signed by the defendant; there being no other
documentary evidence filed by the plaintiff that the invoices were
signed by the defendant, the same could not be read in evidence.
Findings are perverse. To support his submissions, appellant has
placed reliance upon a judgment of Apex Court reported in 2000
SC 426 Ishwar Dass Jain Vs. Sohan Lal to support his stand that
where there is no material or relevant evidence which has been
considered by the appellate Court, the High Court is well within its
power to reverse this finding in term of Section 100 of the Code.
For the same proposition reliance has also been placed upon
judgment of Supreme Court reported in (2007) 15 SCC 529 Udham
Singh Vs. Ram Singh .
6. Both the aforenoted judgments are premised on a situation
where there is no evidence or where a finding has been returned
on evidence which is inadmissible.
7. The instant case is not one such case. The court had relied
upon the three invoices Ex.PW-1/1 to Ex.PW-1/3. The bills had
been proved as Ex.PW-2/5/1 to Ex.PW-2/5/10. Statement of
account had been proved as Ex.PW-2/4. The challan had been
proved as Ex.PW-2/D-1 to Ex.PW-2/D-12. All these process of
evidence, thus, evidenced the fact that cement had in fact been
supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant. The contention of the
defendant all along was that the account stood settled but no such
document had been produced by him. It was in this context that
the trial judge had recorded a finding that the documents have not
been proved by the defendant. The contention of the defendant
that he had returned 114 bags of cement was also not borne out by
any documentary evidence. Per contra, the plaintiff had adduced
sufficient evidence on record and it is on the basis of this
documentary evidence which had been supported by the testimony
of the witnesses of the plaintiff that the suit of the plaintiff stood
decreed. The cross-examinations of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 pointed
out by learned counsel for the appellant refer to an agreement yet
none of the witnesses have deposed that there was any written
agreement; question of production of this document does not arise.
In fact, the defendant had never disputed that the parties did not
have commercial dealings with one another or that the plaintiff was
not making supply of cement to the defendant. This is not a case
where no evidence has been led or evidence has been led which
was inadmissible. The judgments relied upon by the learned
counsel for the appellant do not have any bearing in this factual
scenario.
8. Substantial questions of law have been phrased on page 2
and 3 of the appeal. They do not in any manner form any
substantial question of law. No question of law having been arisen,
the appeal is without any merit; it is dismissed in limine.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
JANUARY 17, 2011
nandan
