Delhi High Court
Kapson Plastics Pvt. Ltd. vs M/S. Eagle Fashions on 14 March, 2011
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No.713/1999
% 14th March, 2011
KAPSON PLASTICS PVT. LTD. ...... Appellant
Through: Mr. R.K. Kapoor, Advocate.
VERSUS
M/S. EAGLE FASHIONS ...... Respondent
Through: Ms. Sunita Harish, Advocate.
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)
C.M. No.1621/2011 in RFA No.713/1999
Learned counsel for the respondent states that she sent a notice
of discharge to the respondent, giving the date of hearing, however, the
respondent has shifted its address without any intimation to the counsel.
Accordingly, Ms. Sunita Harish, Advocate is discharged from the case.
Application stands disposed of.
+ RFA No.713/1999
RFA No.713/1999 Page 1 of 5
1. I have already allowed the application for discharge on behalf of
the counsel who was appearing for the respondent. The respondent was
duty bound to ensure representation on its behalf, however, it has failed to
do so. I have, therefore, heard the learned counsel for the appellant 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 16.10.2009 whereby the suit of the
respondent/plaintiff was decreed for a sum of Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest
@ 18% per annum.
3. The facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit
for recovery of Rs.1,10,040/- with interest @ 24% on the ground that the
respondent/plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- in advance to the
appellant/defendant for supply of plain crinkle sheets and since the
appellant/defendant failed to supply the same, the respondent/plaintiff was
entitled to refund of the advance of Rs.50,000/- as also the loss caused of
Rs.56,640/- for purchasing the crinkle sheet @ Rs.90/- per sq. ft. instead of
Rs.42/- per sq. ft. as was agreed upon.
4. The appellant/defendant appeared and contested the suit. The
appellant/defendant contended that the respondent/plaintiff wanted to
fabricate an iron shed in its factory and therefore requested the
appellant/defendant to suggest a person who can do the needful. The
RFA No.713/1999 Page 2 of 5
appellant/defendant suggested the name of one Mr. Raju Kumar Singh who
was known to the respondent/plaintiff. The appellant/defendant claims to
have done so in hope of getting an order of crinkle sheets from the
respondent/plaintiff. It was pleaded that the monies which were paid by the
respondent were partly in cash and partly by cheque to Sh. Raju Kumar
Singh. The cheque was drawn in the name of the appellant/defendant as the
respondent asked the appellant to be intermediary and the cash amount was
paid directly to Sh. Raju Kumar Singh. The amounts, which were received by
cheque were further paid by the appellant to Sh. Raju Kumar Singh, and for
which the appellant obtained necessary documents/vouchers from Sh. Raju
Kumar Singh.
5. The trial Court, after pleadings were complete, framed the
following issues:-
"1. Whether the plaintiff has paid the alleged amount of
Rs.50,000/- to the defendant against an order for supply of 1180
sq. ft. of plastic FRP Plain Crinkle Sheet? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the interest, if so, at what
rate and on what amount and for what period? OPP
3. Whether the payment of Rs.35,000/- was given by the
plaintiff to the defendant to be paid to Mr. Raju Kumar Singh who
was allegedly to have been introduced by the defendant to the
plaintiff for doing the angle iron work in the factory of the plaintiff?
OPD
4. Whether the suit has been filed without any cause of action?
OPD
5. Relief."
RFA No.713/1999 Page 3 of 5
6. While dealing with the issues, the trial Court has held that the
respondent/plaintiff failed to prove that any order was placed upon the
appellant/defendant with respect to crinkle sheets. Accordingly, the trial
Court dismissed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff to the extent of damages
which were claimed by holding that since there was no contract, there was
no question of grant of any damages to the respondent/plaintiff. The trial
Court, however, held that since a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was found to have
been paid to the appellant/defendant by the respondent, decree with respect
to the said sum ought to be granted in favour of the appellant/defendant.
7. I am of the opinion that the impugned judgment and decree is
clearly illegal and requires to be set aside. This is because of the reason that
once the trial Court held that there was no contract between the parties,
surely, there was no reason why the appellant/defendant would have at all
received any money from the respondent/plaintiff for the supply of crinkle
sheets. Not only that, the appellant/defendant led the evidence of Sh. Raju
Kumar Singh and also proved the vouchers to show payment was made by
the appellant/defendant to Sh. Raju Kumar Singh. The respondent/plaintiff in
fact concealed its book of accounts and did not file the same as noted by the
trial Court and which would have established that monies were paid for Sh.
Raju Kumar Singh.
8. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and decree
requires to be set aside because otherwise the same would mean a double
RFA No.713/1999 Page 4 of 5
whammy upon the appellant/defendant because on the one hand it has paid
the monies received by it to Sh. Raju Kumar Singh yet it would still be
required to pay the money second time over to the respondent/plaintiff.
9. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and decree is set
aside. Suit of the respondent/plaintiff stands dismissed. Decree sheet be
prepared. Trial Court record be sent back.
MARCH 14, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
