Delhi High Court
Shrishti Creations vs Shyam Embriodery on 5 December, 2014
Author: Sunil Gaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: December 05, 2014
+ RSA 372/2014
SHRISHTI CREATIONS ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Ashish Deep Verma, Advocate
versus
SHYAM EMBROIDERY ..... Respondent
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
C.M.No.19820/2014
Exemption is allowed as prayed for.
Application is disposed of.
C.M.No. 19818/2014 (u/S 151 CPC)
For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the
accompanying appeal is condoned.
The application is disposed of.
RSA 372/2014 & C.M.No.19819/2014 (for stay)
The concurrent findings of both the courts below is that appellant-
defendant is liable to pay the suit amount of `1,07,775/- with interest in
respect of the goods supplied by respondent-plaintiff to appellant-
defendant vide Bill Ex.PW1/A.
The facts of this case as noticed in the impugned judgment are as
RSA 372/14 Page 1
under:-
On merits, the case of the plaintiff is that it had
business dealings with the defendant for sale and
purchase of goods on credit basis. It is further the
case of the plaintiff that it had supplied the goods to
defendant vide bill dated 24.08.2007 for an amount of
Rs.2,49,875/- and again vide challan dated 03.08.2007
for a sum of Rs.12,900/-. However, the defendant
returned the goods worth Rs.1,30,500/- to the plaintiff.
Plaintiff also purchased some goods from defendant
worth Rs.24,500/- and after adjusting the amount of
returned goods i.e. Rs.1,30,500/- a sum of
Rs.1,07,775/- remained outstanding against the
defendant, which the defendant failed to pay despite of
receipt of legal notice dated 05.06.2010 sent by the
plaintiff.
On the other hand, the case of the defendant is that
plaintiff is an agent and defendant never purchased
any goods from it. Rather plaintiff purchased some
goods worth Rs.24,500/- from the defendant, but never
paid the said amount to the defendant despite its
repeated requests to pay the same.
The substantive finding returned against the appellant in the
impugned judgment is as under:-
"The case of the defendant is that the said bill and
challan are forged and fabricated. As per the case of
plaintiff, the bill Ex.PW1/A bears the signature of the
defendant and the challan Ex.PW1/B bears the signature
of an employee of the defendant. The defendant has not
led any evidence to prove that the said bill and challan
do not bear his signature or that of his employee."
Learned counsel for appellant contended that Bill (Ex. PW-1/A) is
not signed by appellant and the courts below erred in relying upon it.
RSA 372/14 Page 2
At the hearing, learned counsel for appellant was asked to
substantiate the aforesaid plea from the evidence on record but
appellant's counsel could not do so. It was submitted by learned counsel
for appellant that the goods worth `1,30,000/- supplied by respondent-
plaintiff were returned to respondent-plaintiff and so, appellant is not
liable to pay the decretal amount. Thus, setting aside of the judgment of
the courts below is sought in this second appeal.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the judgment of both the courts
below, I find that appellant-defendant has not led any evidence to
substantiate its plea of bill Ex.PW1/A being forged and fabricated and it
is not pointed out that there is any reliable evidence regarding appellant-
defendant returning the goods in respect of the bill in question to
respondent-plaintiff. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is no
perversity in the concurrent findings returned against the appellant. No
substantial question of law arises in the second appeal.
Consequentially, this appeal and the application are dismissed with
no order as to costs.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 05, 2014
mb/r
RSA 372/14 Page 3
