Delhi High Court
Kuljeet Singh vs Uday Raina & Anr. on 8 May, 2014
Author: G. S. Sistani
$~ 10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 2391/2012
% Judgment dated 08.05.2014
KULJEET SINGH ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr.Pramod Kumar Sharma, Adv
versus
UDAY RAINA & ANR ..... Defendant
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
1.
Plaintiff has filed the present suit under the provisions of Order 37 CPC
for recovery of Rs.24,55,580/- along with interest pendente lite and future
@ 18% per annum, however on 21.2.2013 a statement was made that the
suit may be treated as an ordinary suit. The defendant no.1 has refused to
accept the summons, as noticed in the order of Joint Registrar dated
18.9.2013. The summons issued to the defendant no.2 have been received
back unserved, however, since the defendant no.1 is the sole proprietor of
defendant no.2 he was deemed to have been served.
2. The defendants were proceeded ex parte by an order of this Court dated
28.11.2013.
3. Plaintiff has filed affidavit by way of evidence of the plaintiff, which has
been exhibited as Ex.PW-1/A. As per the evidence of PW-1, he is
carrying on business in the name and style of M/s. Components Overseas
which is a sole proprietorship concern. Defendants had placed an order in
Delhi office of the plaintiff for supply of SMPS (power board). The
material was supplied vide invoice no.1712 dated 5.7.2011 for a sum of
Rs.20.81 lacs. A copy of the invoice has been filed and exhibited as
Ex.PW-1/1. In discharge of its liability defendant no.1 issued a cheque
bearing no.467003 dated 13.7.2011 for Rs.20.81 lacs on behalf of
defendant no.2. The aforesaid cheque was returned on presentation by the
banker‟s of defendant for "insufficient funds". The dishonoured cheque
has been exhibited as Ex.PW-1/2. The signature of the defendant no.1 has
been identified at point „A‟ of the cheque. The cheque was re-presented
and it was again dishonoured. The return memos have been exhibited as
Ex.PW-1/3 and 1/4 respectively. Legal notice dated 8.9.2011 was issued
by the plaintiff to the defendant no.1 is exhibited as Ex.PW-1/5. A reply
to the legal notice was received, which is exhibited as Ex.PW-1/9.
4. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that despite repeated requests, the
defendants have failed to make payment. Accordingly, the plaintiff prays
for a decree.
5. I have heard counsel for the plaintiff and also perused the affidavit by way
of evidence, which remained un-rebutted and unchallenged. Plaintiff has
been able to prove the invoice by which goods worth Rs.20.81 lacs were
supplied to the defendants. The same has been exhibited as Ex.PW-1/1.
Plaintiff has also placed on record the dishonoured cheque dated
13.7.2011 drawn on Chinatrust Commercial Bank in the sum of Rs.20.81
lacs which was issued by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The
cheque has been exhibited as Ex.PW-1/2. The return memos showing that
the defendant had insufficient funds, have also been placed on records, as
Ex.PW1/3 and PW-1/4 respectively. Legal notice issued to the defendant
has also been placed on record. The defendant has chosen not to appear
in the matter and contest the same.
6. Having regard to the documents placed on record and the evidence filed,
the plaintiff has been able to prove that the goods were supplied and the
cheque was received in discharge of debt due. Accordingly, the suit is
decreed in the sum of Rs.24,55,580/- in favour of the plaintiff and against
the defendant.
7. Being a commercial transaction, plaintiff would be entitled to pendente
lite and future interest @ 12% per annum. Decree-sheet be drawn up
accordingly.
G.S.SISTANI, J
MAY 08, 2014
ssn
