Saturday, 25, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

S C Manocha vs M/S Balaji Thurmo Electrical Pvt ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 6702 Del

Citation : 2014 Latest Caselaw 6702 Del
Judgement Date : 11 December, 2014

Delhi High Court
S C Manocha vs M/S Balaji Thurmo Electrical Pvt ... on 11 December, 2014
Author: S. P. Garg
$~
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                RESERVED ON : 19th November, 2014
                                DECIDED ON : 11th December, 2014

+                                  CS(OS) 16/2012

       S C MANOCHA
                                                         ..... Plaintiff
                          Through :     Mr.J.K.Dhingra, Advocate.

                          versus

       M/S BALAJI THURMO ELECTRICAL PVT LTD
                                           ..... Defendant
                     Through : None.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J.

1. The plaintiff has instituted the instant suit for recovery of

`26,80,484/- along with pendente lite and future interest.

2. Plaintiff is the proprietor of M/s Max Engineering and

Marketing Company and deals in electrical items of various description.

The defendant used to purchase goods from him through various invoices.

He was liable to pay interest at the rate of 24% per annum on delayed

payment.

3. Case of the plaintiff is that the defendant purchased electrical

goods from him through various invoices as detailed in para (4) of the

plaint from September 21, 2010 to October 2010. As per the statement of

account maintained by him a balance of `23,51,302/- was due and

outstanding against the defendant on account of balance price of the goods

till 23rd October, 2010. The defendant in discharge of the part liability

issued a cheque for the sum of `10,11,431/- vide cheque bearing

No.007966 dated 20.11.2010. However, on presentation the cheque was

dishonoured. Again, the defendant issued another cheque in the last week

of January, 2011 which was also dishonoured. Proceedings under Section

138 Negotiable Instruments Act have been initiated. The defendant failed

to make payment despite various requests. Hence the present suit.

4. None appeared on behalf of the defendant despite service.

The defendant was accordingly proceeded ex-parte by an order dated

18.02.2014. The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 besides examining

PW-2 (Nikhil Kumar) and PW-3 (R.K.Suri).

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and have

examined the record. The averments in the plaint have been proved by

PW-1 Shomender Gupta, attorney of the plaintiff. He filed affidavit of

evidence (Ex.PW-1/A). He proved various documents (Ex.PW1/1 to

Ex.PW1/21). Reliance was also placed on documents marked X to X5.

Ex.PW1/1 is the general power of attorney issued in favour of Shomender

Gupta. Exhibit PW-1/2 to Ex.PW-1/19 are 18 invoices through which

electric goods were purchased by the defendant from the plaintiff.

Statement of account is marked 'X' for the period from 01.04.2010 to

31.03.2011. Mark-X1 is the photocopy of the cheque bearing No.007966

issued in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.PW-1/20 is the notice dated

03.03.2011 served upon the defendant.

6. PW-2 (Nikhil Kumar) brought the judicial record in the

proceedings under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act and deposed

that it contained original cheque No. 007966 dated 20.11.2010 drawn on

ICICI bank and return memo dated 02.02.2011 issued by the Indian

Overseas Bank. Photocopies of the same were marked as Ex.PW2/1 and

Ex.PW-2/2 respectively. Postal receipts were exhibited as Ex.PW-2/3 to

Ex.PW-2/6. PW-3 R.K.Suri, Assistant Manager, Indian Overseas Bank,

Punjabi Bagh, proved return memo (Ex.PW-2/2).

7. The testimonies of PW-1 to PW-3 have remained

unchallenged and uncontroverted. Adverse inference is drawn against the

defendant for not appearing and contesting the suit. There are no sound

reasons to disbelieve the unchallenged testimony of PW-1 to PW-3.

Issuance of two cheques in the discharge of part liability by the defendant

and proceedings under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act

corroborate the version given by the plaintiff in the plaint and evidence by

way of affidavit.

8. In the light of the above discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is

decreed for the sum of `26,80,484/- with costs. The plaintiff shall also be

entitled for interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of

the suit till the realization of the outstanding amount.

9. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.

10. The suit and pending IA (if any) stand disposed of

accordingly.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE December 11, 2014 sa

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IDRC

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter