Delhi High Court
Harish Dhalla vs Rajesh Luthra on 5 October, 2018
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 2013/2015
HARISH DHALLA ..... Plaintiff
Through Mr R.K.Singla, Advocate
versus
RAJESH LUTHRA ..... Defendant
Through None
% Date of Decision: 05th October, 2018
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
1. Present suit has been filed for recovery of a total sum of
Rs.1,05,96,187/- (Rupees One Crore Five Lacs Ninety Six Thousand
One Hundred Eighty Seven Only) along with pendente lite and future
interest @ 18% p.a.
2. It is stated in the plaint that the plaintiff is engaged in the
business of selling jewellery.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had, on various
occasions, purchased jewellery articles from the plaintiff. He states
that, however, since the beginning the defendant had been irregular in
making payments to the plaintiff against the aforementioned
purchases. The details of the purchases made by the defendant are
reproduced hereinbelow:
Sr no Date Invoice no Amount in Rs
i. 25.08.2010 053 19,94,356.00
ii. 31.08.2010 054 26,64,662.00
iii. 19.10.2010 055 20,15,150.00
iv. 01.02.2011 062 7,28,792.00
v. 04.06.2011 068 30,86,857.00
vi. 12.08.2011 070 7,89,543.00
vii. 12.08.2011 071 27,64,890.00
viii 12.08.2011 072 25,22,302.00
4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that till date the
defendant has paid only the following amounts to the plaintiff with
respect to his outstanding dues and the same have been admitted by
the defendant: -
Sr no Date Cheque No Amount in Rs
i. 22.09.2010 970265 10,00,000.00
ii. 21.10.2010 970266 10,00,000.00
iii. 25.01.2011 970270 10,00,000.00
iv. 04.03.2011 RTGS 10,00,000.00
v. 28.04.2011 023819 10,00,000.00
vi. 10.08.2011 061900 10,00,000.00
vii. 01.10.2011 RTGS 10,00,000.00
viii. 12.01.2012 204534 10,00,000.00
ix. 10.04.2013 526089 3,85,000.00
x. 29.04.2013 RTGS 5,00,000.00
xi. 16.07.2013 RTGS 4,01,000.00
5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that the aforementioned
amounts have been duly confirmed and signed by the defendant and/or
his authorized representative in the statement of accounts maintained
by the plaintiff during the course of his business.
6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that a principal sum of
Rs.63,10,552/- (Rupees Sixty-Three Lacs Ten Thousand Five Hundred
Fifty-Two Only) and interest of Rs.42,85,635/- (Rupees Fourty Two
Lacs Eighty-Five Thousand Six Hundred and Thirty-Five Only) is still
outstanding against the defendant and the same has not been paid,
even though repeated requests have been made by the plaintiff.
7. On 08th June, 2015 the plaintiff sent a legal notice to the
defendant, demanding the payment of his outstanding dues. He states
that despite notice being served upon the defendant on 09th June, 2015,
he has still not paid his outstanding dues and has instead sent a false
and frivolous reply to the legal notice dated 23rd June, 2015.
8. The defendant initially entered appearance and also filed his
written statement. In his written statement, the defendant has stated
that he had returned the goods equaling to the outstanding dues, i.e.
Rs. 63,10,552/-, vide invoices dated 08th April, 2015, 18th April, 2015
and 30th April, 2015.
9. On 25th November, 2016, when the matter was listed for
framing issues, none appeared for the defendant and the following
issues were framed by the learned predecessor of this Court:-
"i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed?
ii. Relief"
10. The plaintiff has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Mr.
Harish Dhalla (PW1) and Ms. Yogita, Sr. Assistant, Department of
Trades & Taxes, Vyapar Bhawan (PW2).
11. Mr. Harish Dhalla (PW1) has proved amongst others, the
following documents: -
(i) Invoices issued by the plaintiff to the defendant, as
mentioned in para 3 and exhibited as Ex. PW1/1 to
Ex. PW1/8.
(ii) Statements of accounts of the defendant exhibited as
Ex. PW1/9.
(iii) Confirmation of the accounts signed by the defendant
exhibited as Ex. PW1/11 to Ex. PW1/12.
(iv) Legal notice dated 08th June, 2015 exhibited as Ex.
PW1/13 sent by the plaintiff to the defendant.
(v) Reply to the legal notice sent by the defendant to the
plaintiff dated 23rd June, 2015 exhibited as Ex.
PW1/16.
12. Ms. Yogita, Sr. Assistant, Department of Trades & Taxes,
Vyapar Bhawan (PW2) has proved the Purchase Return of the firm of
the plaintiff and the same is exhibited as Ex. PW2/1 (Colly).
13. The defendant cross examined the PW1 before the Joint
Registrar on 13th October, 2017. However, the defendant did not
appear before the Joint Registrar either on 20th July, 2018 or 19th
September, 2018. Consequently, vide order dated 03rd October, 2018,
he was proceeded ex-parte.
14. Having perused the paper book, this Court finds that the
plaintiff has proved his invoices, statement of accounts and legal
notice. The plaintiff has also proved the confirmation of his accounts.
15. However, the defendant has not led any evidence to prove his
defence that he had returned the jewellery in question vide three
invoices dated 08th April, 2015, 18th April, 2015 and 30th April, 2015.
It is pertinent to mention that the defence of return of jewellery items
has not even been taken by the defendant in his reply dated 23rd June,
2015 to the plaintiff's legal notice. Consequently, the defence of the
defendant is not reflected in the contemporaneous correspondence.
16. Accordingly, the present suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff
and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.1,05,96,187/- (Rupees One
Crore Five Lacs Ninety-Six Thousand One Hundred Eighty-Seven
Only) along with interest pendente lite and future @ 8% per annum.
This Court may mention that it is awarding the interest @ 8% per
annum as that is the normal rate at which the banks are lending monies
now-a-days.
17. Registry is directed to prepare a decree sheet accordingly.
MANMOHAN, J
OCTOBER 05, 2018
KA/rs
