Mukesh Sharma vs M/S Faces Cosmetics (India) Pvt. ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 4594 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                  RFA No. 628/2018

%                                             6th August, 2018

MUKESH SHARMA                                         ..... Appellant
                          Through:       Mr. G.C.Sharma and Mr. Bhola
                                         Singh, Advocates.
                          versus

M/S FACES COSMETICS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. & ORS.
                                        ..... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

CM No.31257/2018 (Exemption)

Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

CM stands disposed of.

RFA 628/2018

1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code

of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC ) is filed by the plaintiff in the suit

impugning the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 28.3.2018 by which

the trial court has dismissed the suit for recovery of monies filed by

the appellant/plaintiff for a sum of Rs.4,15,755/- along with interest.

2. I need not narrate the facts in detail however, the limited

facts which require attention are that the appellant/plaintiff claims to

have been appointed as a dealer for the cosmetics/goods by respondent

nos. 1 and 2/defendant nos. 1 and 2 under an agreement but which

agreement was kept with the respondent nos. 1 and 2/defendant nos. 1

and 2 and the appellant/plaintiff does not even have copy of the same.

It is further the case of the appellant/plaintiff that the goods in

question were to be sold and routed to the appellant/plaintiff through

the Super-Stockist of respondent nos. 1 and 2/defendant nos. 1 and 2

and who was the respondent no.3/defendant no.3 in the suit. Since the

accessories division was closed down by the respondent

no.3/defendant no.3, consequently the cause of action pleaded in the

plaint is that unsold stocks lying with the appellant/plaintiff should be

taken over either by the respondent nos. 1 and 2/defendant nos. 1 and

2 with whom the appellant/plaintiff had an agreement or the

respondent no.3/defendant no.3 from whom the stocks used to be

purchased by the appellant/plaintiff.

3. Trial court has found that the appellant/plaintiff has only

pleaded that there was a normal trade practice that the goods which

remained unsold with a distributor on closure of business or

distributorship, are to be taken back by the manufacturer or supplier,

however, the trial court has found this as a matter of fact that there is no

such agreement proved by the appellant/plaintiff with either of the

respondents/defendants that the unsold stocks lying with the

appellant/plaintiff had to be taken back by either of the

respondent/defendants. I may also add that there is no written agreement

filed on record by the appellant/plaintiff that the unsold stocks were to be

taken back from the appellant/plaintiff by either of the

respondents/defendants. Once that is so, the entire cause of action in the

plaint has rightly been disbelieved by the trial court, and with which

conclusion I agree because there does not arise an issue of an automatic

entitlement of a purchaser of goods to return of the unsold stocks, and

that return of such unsold stocks can only be on the basis of an

agreement, but no such agreement has been proved by the

appellant/plaintiff.

4. Dismissed.

AUGUST 06,2018/ib                                     VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J