Delhi High Court
Devi Fashions Dreams Pvt Ltd vs Omkar Singh Gautam on 2 September, 2011
Author: J.R. Midha
6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA 417/2010
% Date of decision: 2nd September, 2011
DEVI FASHIONS DREAMS PVT LTD ..... Appellant
Through : Mr. M.S.Sasan, Adv.
versus
OMKAR SINGH GAUTAM ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. Dalip K. Sharma,
Adv.
CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may NO
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be NO
reported in the Digest?
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellant has challenged the judgment and decree
for `2,41,130/- passed by the learned trial Court in favour of
the respondent.
2. The respondent filed a suit for recovery of ` 3,20,000/-
against the appellant. The respondent's case is that he was
manufacturing and stitching garments; the appellant was
getting the job-work of stitching garments from the respondent
and a sum of `2,91,130/- was due and payable for the job-work
done during the period 29.03.2006 to 14.12.2006. The
appellant issued a cheque for `50,000/- to the respondent
towards part payment of the aforesaid amount which was
dishonored whereupon the respondent instituted the complaint
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the
appellant. The respondent issued a legal notice dated
11.12.2007 before filing the suit. The respondent placed on
record the copies of 45 bills, statement of account and the
legal notice along with postal receipts and A.D. cards before
the learned trial Court.
3. In the written statement before the learned trial Court,
the appellant admitted that it was getting job-work done from
the respondent. However, the liability of `2,91,130/- was
denied. It was pleaded by the appellant that the payment was
made at the time of collecting the job-work. It was further
pleaded that the appellant was liable to pay a sum of `50,000/-
to the respondent in respect of which a cheque was issued
which was dishonored but after the filing of the complaint
under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act by the
respondent, the appellant made the payment of the said
amount to the respondent. The receipt of the legal notice was
admitted but no reply was given by the appellant. It was
further pleaded that 45 bills filed by the respondent were
forged and fabricated.
4. The respondent appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and
proved the copies of the bills as Ex.PW-1/1 to Ex.PW-1/45. The
statement of account was proved as Ex.PW-1/46 to PW-1/50.
The copy of the legal notice dated 11.12.2007 along with post
receipts and A.D. Card were proved as Ex.PW-1/51 to PW-1/54.
5. The appellant appeared in the witness box as DW-1 and
admitted that the respondent was doing the job-work for the
appellant. DW-1 deposed that the respondent used to collect
the raw cloth from the appellant and at the time of delivery of
the stitched clothes, the payment was made at times by cash
and at times by cheque. DW-1 deposed that one cheque of
`50,000/- given by the appellant to the respondent was
dishonored upon presentation but the payment was made after
the respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 Negotiable
Instruments Act against the appellant. The bills Ex.PW-1/1 to
Ex.PW-1/45 were disputed as being forged and fabricated. In
cross-examination DW-1 admitted that the respondent was
doing job-work for appellant for approximately three years and
the job-work was shown by him in the Income-tax returns.
DW-1 further deposed that no job-work was done by the
respondent in respect of bills Ex.PW-1/1 to PW-1/45.
6. From the evidence on record, it is clear that the appellant
has admitted that the respondent was doing the job-work for
the appellant for three years prior to the institution of the suit.
The respondent has successfully proved the case set up in the
plaint whereas the appellant has not been able to prove the
defence set up in its written statement. The appellant
admitted in the witness box that the job-work done by the
respondent was shown by him in his Income-tax returns. In
that view of the matter, the appellant ought to have placed on
record the job-work done by the respondent and the payments
made by him. The appellant ought to have placed on record
the copies of the bills against which it made the payment of
`50,000/- to the respondent. The receipt of legal notice dated
11.12.2007 is admitted by the appellant but the appellant
chose not to respond to the same. The learned trial Court has
drawn adverse inference against the appellant for not placing
on record its statement of account and copies of bills against
which the appellant made the payment of `50,000/-. There is
no infirmity in the findings of the learned Trial Court.
7. There is no merit in the appeal. The appeal is, therefore,
dismissed with costs.
8. The appellant has deposited a sum of `1,25,000/- with
the Registrar General of this Court in terms of order dated 15th
July, 2010. The Registrar General is directed to release the
same along with interest thereon to the respondent.
J.R. MIDHA, J
SEPTEMBER 02, 2011
mr
