delhihighcourt

JITA MAL SATPAL vs BHIWADI POLYMERS LTD

$~32
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%     Date of decision: 08.02.2024

+ RFA(COMM) 39/2024
JITA MAL SATPAL ….. APPELLANT
Through: Mr Vineet Jain, Advocate.
versus
BHIWADI POLYMERS LTD ….. RESPONDENT
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.: (ORAL)
CM APPLs. 7832-33/2024
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
RFA(COMM) 39/2024 and CM APPL. 7831/2024 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking interim relief]
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20.12.2023 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court)-02, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
2.1 The fate of the appeal is pivoted, even according to the appellant, on one document, i.e., Ex.DW-1/3, as would be evident from what is stated hereafter:
3. The record shows that the respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.6,54,830/- , which included both the principal amount and the interest component. The principal amount qua which the respondent/plaintiff sought recovery is Rs.5,41,180. Insofar as the interest component was concerned, the respondent/plaintiff sought recovery of Rs.1,13,650/- calculated @ 18% per annum.
4. The defence set up by the appellant/defendant was that the total amount which was payable to the respondent/plaintiff, i.e., Rs.7,35,240/- stood adjusted against tokens/coupons/coins returned to the respondent/plaintiff worth Rs.6,02,764/-.
4.1 Besides this, it is also contended on behalf of the appellant/defendant that certain goods were received from the respondent/plaintiff and subsequently returned, qua which respondent/plaintiff gave credit amounting to Rs.1,37,327/-. Therefore, the appellant/defendant claimed that if the adjustment made qua the value of tokens/coupons/coins and returned goods is taken into consideration, money, if any, would be payable to the appellant/defendant and not the other way round.
5. Concededly, there is neither a dispute with regard to the value of the returned goods, nor it is disputed that credit qua the same was given to the appellant/defendant, amounting to Rs.1,37,327/-
6. The defence taken by the appellant/defendant that the respondent/plaintiff received tokens/coupons/coins worth Rs.6,02,764/- was founded on a document marked as Ex.DW-1/3. According to the appellant/defendant, the said document bore the signatures of one Anil Kumar, who was the representative of the respondent/plaintiff.
7. It is the contention of Mr Vineet Jain, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/defendant, that the respondent/plaintiff has not disputed the fact that Anil Kumar was its representative.
7.1 It is, therefore, contended by Mr Jain that the trial court ought to have taken this fact into account and then reached a conclusion as to whether money, as claimed by the respondent/plaintiff in the suit action, was due to be paid by the appellant/defendant.
8. We may note that the appellant/defendant has also taken the position that he has instituted a suit in the concerned court in Punjab to claim from the respondent/plaintiff Rs.5,000/-, which according to him is the money due to him after the aforementioned adjustments are accounted for.
8.1 Pertinently, the trial court has concluded that the document, i.e., Ex.DW-1/3 has not been proved by the appellant/defendant. It is observed by the trial court that neither was Anil Kumar produced as a witness nor was any other witness tendered to prove the signatures of Anil Kumar.
9. Significantly, Mr Jain has not advanced any other submission with regard to the error (legal or factual) in the impugned judgment. Mr Jain does not dispute the position that the Ex.DW-1/3 was not proved by the appellant/defendant. The sole argument that was put forth, as noted above, was that the respondent/plaintiff had accepted that Anil Kumar was its representative. In our view, that would not suffice.
10. Consequently, we find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
11. Resultantly, pending interlocutory application shall also stand closed.
12. Registry will dispatch a copy of the judgment to the respondent.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

AMIT BANSAL, J
FEBRUARY 8, 2024 / tr

RFA(COMM)No.39/2024 Page 3 of 3