Delhi District Court
M/S S.S. Industries vs M/S Biscuit Basket Pvt Ltd on 8 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DR. NEERA BHARIHOKE
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-06
SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLSE01-007197-2019
CS DJ 809/2019
M/s S.S Industries,
Through Its Prop.
Sh. Amit Paul
At 40/48, I GF,
C.R. Park,
New Delhi-110019
... Plaintiff
Versus
M/s Biscuit Basket Foods Pvt Ltd,
Through its MD/Director,
At-87-B,
1st Floor Modi Complex,
M.P Nagar Zone-II,
Bhopal-462011(Μ.Ρ)
....Defendant
Date of institution of the suit : 16.09.2019
Date of transfer of the case : 23.11.2022
Date on which judgment was reserved : 18.03.2025
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 08.04.2025
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 1 of 58 Digitally signed
by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.04.08
15:52:11 +0530
JUDGMENT
SUIT FOR RECOVERY
1. By way of this judgment, I shall decide the suit of the Plaintiff filed
for recovery of Rs.7,73,437/- alongwith interest.
CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF AS SET UP IN THE PLAINT
2. Brief facts of the case as stated by the Plaintiff in the plaint are that:
a) The Plaintiff is carrying on his business under the name and style
of M/s S.S Industries as Proprietor and is well conversant with the
facts and circumstances of the case and is competent to sign and
verify the plaint.
b) The Defendant is Pvt Ltd. Company, and it was customer of the
Plaintiff and had been purchasing items/printed premium Rusk
wrapper/Labels etc. from the Plaintiff on 7 days credit. The
plaintiff raised invoices upon the Defendant for purchased price of
the items.
c) The Plaintiff had been maintaining proper books of account
reflecting therein the transaction of sale and payment. As on
01.04.2018, as per the Statement of Account, a sum ofNEERA
BHARIHOKE
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 2 of 58Digitally signed by
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.04.08
15:52:17 +0530
Rs.6,11,911.84/- as principal amount was due and payable by the
Defendant to the Plaintiff.
d) The Defendant failed to discharge its liability and to pay the due
amount to the Plaintiff. Since the Defendant failed to discharge its
liability and intentionally and knowingly withheld the due
amount, therefore, Defendant was liable to pay the due amount
alongwith interest @ 18% P.A.
e) Since then, the Plaintiff had been demanding the due amount from
the Defendant, but the Defendant had been avoiding making
payment on one pretext or another to the Plaintiff. Thus, the
Defendant had neglected and failed to discharge its obligation and
pay the due amount to the Plaintiff despite repeated requests &
reminders.
f) When the Defendant failed to discharge its obligation, thereafter,
the Plaintiff sent legal demand notice on 28.05.2019 vide Speed
Post upon the Defendant. Despite the service of the notice, the
Defendant failed and neglected to comply with the demand notice
and had not made payment of the principal amount or interest or
any part of it to the Plaintiff.
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Digitally signed
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 3 of 58 by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.04.08
15:52:23 +0530
g) A sum of Rs.7,73,437/- was due and payable by the Defendant to
the Plaintiff which Defendant had withheld. The details of the due
amount are as under:
Principal Amount Rs.6,11,911/-
Interest @ 18% p.a. on Rs.6,11,911/- Rs.1,56,025/-
(Since 01.04.2018 to 31.08.2019)
Notice Charge Rs.5500/-
Total Rs.7,73,437/-
3. The Plaintiff preferred a Pre-litigation/Pre-Institution Mediation
before the Competent Authority, i.e. SEDLSA, on 30.05.2019, however
Defendant did not appear before the Competent Authority. Furthermore,
the Non-Starter Report for the Pre-Institution Mediation was issued by
the Competent Authority, SEDLSA, dated 21.08.2019.
4. Hence, the present suit was filed initially before Learned
Additional District Judge-06, South-East District, Saket Courts, New
Delhi.
5. The Defendant entered appearance through counsel on 22.11.2019
and requested for supplying documents filed with the plaint Direction
was given on the same date by learned Additional District Judge/South-
East District. to supply the same. On the same day, at joint request, the
matter was referred to the Mediation Center to settle the matter
amicably.
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 4 of 58
Digitally signed
by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.04.08
15:52:29 +0530
6. By virtue of order no. 1 of learned District and Sessions Judge,
South-East, Saket Courts, New Delhi pertaining to list of transfer cases,
vide order dated 08.01. 2020, the matter was transferred to learned
District Judge-02, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi.
7. The matter could not be settled before the Mediation Center. Due
to lock-down on account of COVID-19 pandemic, the matter was not
physically taken up on 27.03.2020, 26.05.2020 and 16.07.2020 as
recorded in order dated 09.09.2020.
8. The matter was taken up through VC on 09.09.2020. On the same
day, again at joint request, the matter was referred to the Mediation
Center to settle the matter amicably.
9. The matter could not be settled through mediation.
10. An application under Order VII Rule 10 read with Rule 11 CPC
was filed by the Defendant by submitting that this court has no
jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit since the suit is barred by
law. The other ground taken was that the plant failed to disclose any
cause of action and is devoid of territorial jurisdiction. After hearing
detailed arguments, the application was rejected vide order dated
06.02.2023 and it was held that the plaint disclosed cause of action and
also that the orders had been placed by the Defendant at the office of
Plaintiff which is at 40/48, LGF, CR Park, New Delhi-110019 and goods
NEERA
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 5 of 58 BHARIHOKE
Digitally signed
by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.04.08
15:52:35 +0530
were also delivered/dispatched to Defendant from above premises and
therefore this court has territorial jurisdiction.
11. Written Statement was filed on behalf of Defendant.
CASE OF THE DEFENDANT AS SET UP IN THE WRITTEN
STATEMENT
12. Brief facts of the case as stated by the Defendant in the Written
Statement are that:
a) The suit deserves to be dismissed at the very outset since as per
mandate of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the
suit should be instituted where the Defendant or where there are
more than one, at the time of commencement of suit, actually and
voluntary resides, or carries on business or works for gain or
where cause of action, wholly or in part arises. This Court does
not have territorial jurisdiction since neither the Defendant is
residing or carrying on its business in Delhi nor any cause of
action has arisen in Delhi. Defendant is carrying on its business
from Bhopal and the registered office of the Defendant is in
Bhopal.
b) This Court will have jurisdiction only if the Defendant resides in
Delhi or works for gain or carries on business in Delhi or if the
cause of action has arisen in Delhi. The submissions of the
Plaintiff are incorrect that this Court has territorial jurisdictionNEERA
BHARIHOKE
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 6 of 58Digitally signed
by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.04.08
15:52:40 +0530
because Registered Office of the Plaintiff is in Delhi, Plaintiff
works for gain at Delhi and that as goods were
delivered/dispatched to the Defendant from the Plaintiff, which is
in Delhi.
c) Averment of the Plaintiff that cause of action has arisen in Delhi
as the order was dispatched from Delhi is immaterial for the
purpose of ascertaining jurisdiction. The Plaintiff failed to plead
any other facts, in the absence of which, it cannot be ascertained
whether this Court has jurisdiction or not.
d) Plaintiff is seeking recovery on the premise that despite raising of
invoices, the Defendant failed to make payment. As per the
documents filed by the Plaintiff, the alleged invoices were sent to
Bhopal and payment had to be made from Bhopal. Therefore, the
present suit should be filed in Bhopal.
e) In view of the aforesaid facts and submission, plaint filed by the
Plaintiff does not disclose any facts to indicate that this Court has
jurisdiction to entertain the present Suit. Thus, the Plaint should
be returned.
f) The suit has been filed by the Proprietor, Sh. Amit in the name of
the Proprietorship firm. Proprietorship firm is not a legal entity
and the suit filed in the Proprietorship firm’s name is not
NEERA
BHARIHOKEDigitally signed by
NEERA
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 7 of 58 BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.04.08
15:52:49 +0530
maintainable. No document had been placed on record to indicate
that Sh. Amit Paul is the sole proprietor of the firm. The stamp of
the proprietary firm is also not affixed in the Affidavit/Prayer
Clause. In the absence of same, the suit is not properly authorized.
Thus, the suit is not maintainable in its present form and should be
dismissed at the very outset.
g) The Defendant had placed an oral order for purchasing premium
wrappers/labels with a condition that that the materials would
have to be of the following standards:
a. Printing Quality has to be good, neat and clean.
b. The Lamination quality has to be good. It has to be ensured that
there is no delamination.
c. Thickness of the lamination (GSM) should be 42-44 microns.
d. The appropriate weight of the wrapping rolls should be 12-14
kge. The eye-mark printing has to be solid print.
f. Vignette Size has to be same from both ends.
g. The picture placing has to be at the centre.
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 8 of 58
Digitally signed
by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.04.08
15:52:57 +0530
h) It was agreed by the parties that if the materials were of an inferior
quality then the Plaintiff would be under a mandatory obligation
to take the materials back and rectify the default within a
reasonable time. Otherwise, the contract would be treated as
repudiated and the Defendant would not be liable to make any
payment.
i) The materials supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendant were
deficient and sub-standard. The deficiencies are mentioned below:
a. The printing quality was very poor and images on the wrapper
were blurred.
b. The Lamination quality was poor. The paper was separating
into layers and opening up during the process of sealing.
c. Wrapping rolls were too big and heavy. The appropriate weight
should be 12-14 kg. However, the gross weight of the wrapper
was 31 kg.
d. The eye-mark was not proper, because of which there was
wastage of paper and machine was unable to detect the eye mark
and complete the sealing process. As a result the sealing had to be
done manually.
e. There were lines in wrapper due to improper drying of ink.
f. Thickness of the lamination (GSM) was uneven. Standard to be
maintained should be 42-44 microns. Whereas the wrappers
received were of over 55 microns.
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 9 of 58
Digitally signed
by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.04.08
15:53:05 +0530
g. Vignette Size was uneven from both ends. Thus, the design
image was not as per the sample.
The same is evident from the report prepared by the quality in-
charge of the Defendant Company in January 2018.
j) The Defendant examined the materials and immediately informed
the Plaintiff that the same were sub-standard and were of an
inferior quality through various telephonic calls as well as
WhatsApp messages dated 19.01.2018 and 24.01.2018.
k) The Plaintiff admitted the deficiency and further stated that it was
a mistake on his part to send the goods to Bhopal. The Plaintiff
also gave assurance that he would improve the materials and make
the necessary changes. However, the Plaintiff failed to adhere to
his assurance. The Plaintiff did not replace the inferior quality
materials. The materials supplied thereafter were also of
substandard quality.
l) The Plaintiff was again informed through telephonic calls and vide
email dated 30.03.2018 about the deficiencies in the materials.
The Plaintiff was also asked to take the materials back. The
Plaintiff was also informed that despite being given multiple
opportunities, the Plaintiff has failed to improve the quality
because of which the Defendant suffered a loss. However, the
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 10 of 58
Digitally signed by
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.04.08
15:53:14 +0530
Plaintiff did not pay heed to the request of the Defendant and did
not take back the materials.
m) At last to mitigate his loss, the Defendant supplied biscuits and
rusks to various dealers/traders in the materials supplied by the
Plaintiff. However, the biscuits and rusks supplied were returned
by his customers/dealers because the same are spoiled because the
wrappers were very thick, not proper and of inferior quality
because of which it got high moisture content that spoiled the
biscuits and rusks. The dealers told the Defendants to take the
goods back and return the money. Resultantly, the Defendant
suffered huge losses in the market. Details regarding the same are
tabulated herein below:
Correspondences Dealers Loss Suffered on account of
inferior quality of wrappers
21.04.2018 and Ramdas Sales 5,70,000/-
19.05.2018 Corporation
22.04.2018 and Divyanshi Agency 3,50,000/-
10.05.2018
15.04.2018 and Vindhyachal Trading 4,40,000/-
29.04.2018 Corporation
15.04.2018 and Shree Balaji Bakeries 5,50,000/-
24.04.2018 Ltd.
17.04.2018 and Daksh Enterprises 6,65,000
07.05.2018
18.03.2018 and Freunde International 6,00,000/-
15.04.2018
21.4.2018 MP Traders
Total 31,75,000/-
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 11 of 58
Digitally signed by
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.04.08
15:53:21 +0530
n) The plaintiff was again reminded about the deficiencies in
materials vide e-mail dated 01.06.2018. The Plaintiff was
reminded to take the materials back. The Plaintiff was also
informed that the Defendant suffered a loss of approximately
Rs.35-45 Lakhs. However, the Plaintiff did not respond to any of
the communications.
o) Thus, the Plaintiff had breached the material condition of contract
by supplying defective and inferior quality goods. Thus, the
contract stands repudiated by virtue of Section 12 of the Sales of
Goods Act, 1930. The necessary corollary thereto is that the
Plaintiff is not liable to make any payment to the Defendant.
p) Alternatively, the Plaintiff was liable to compensate the Defendant
for the damage caused because of the substandard/ deficient
materials supplied by it.
q) The suit has been filed in the name of the Proprietorship firm by
Sh. Amit Paul. Proprietorship firm is not a legal entity, and the
suit filed in the Proprietorship firm’s name is not maintainable. No
document had been placed on record to indicate that Sh. Amit
Paul is the sole proprietor of the firm. In the absence of the same,
the suit is not properly authorized and should be dismissed as the
suit is not maintainable in its present form.
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 12 of 58
Digitally signed by
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.04.08
15:53:27 +0530
r) The Defendant had purchased the materials from the Plaintiff on
certain conditions that were verbally agreed upon between the
parties.
s) The Plaintiff is not liable to any amount as alleged. On the other
hand, it was the Plaintiff who was liable to pay damages to the
Defendant on account of loss caused by it.
t) The contents of Notice dated 28.05.2019 are denied.
u) This Court lacks territorial jurisdiction.
REPLICATION OF THE PLAINTIFF
13. Replication has been filed by the Plaintiff, wherein the Plaintiff
has denied the contents of the Written Statement and reiterated the
contents of the plaint.
FRAMING OF ISSUES
14. Vide order dated 01.12.2023, the exercise of admission/denial of
documents on behalf of Defendant was dispensed with since one
opportunity granted to the parties had remained unutilized and further
adjournment was likely to cause more delay. On the pleadings of the
parties, the following issues were framed by my learned Predecessor:-
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 13 of 58
Digitally signed
by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.04.08
15:53:33 +0530
1. Whether the suit is bad for want of territorial jurisdiction?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of recovery as prayed? OP
Plaintiff.
3. Whether any interest is payable, if any, at what rate? OP Plaintiff.
4. Any other relief.
15. The matter was fixed for Plaintiff’s Evidence. Shri Mayank
Mikhail Mukherjee was appointed as Learned Local Commissioner for
recording of evidence of the parties and the matter was listed for report
of learned Local Commissioner and final arguments for 16.01.2024.
16. On 18.12.2023, the matter was taken up on an application of the
Defendant filed under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) CPC. By that time the
recording of the evidence of the plaintiff stood concluded. The said
application filed under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) CPC was dismissed by a
detailed order dated 16.01. 2024.
PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE
17. Plaintiff examined PW-1 Shri Amit Paul on 08.12. 2023. He
presented his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex. PW-1/A. He
reiterated the contents of the plaint and relied upon the following
documents: –
NEERA
BHARIHOKECS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 14 of 58 Digitally signed
by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.04.08
15:53:40 +0530
i. Carbon copy of Bill/Invoice No. 206 is Ex.PW-1/1.
ii. Copy of consignment slip dated 20.12.2017 is Ex.PW-1/2.
iii. Carbon copy of Bill/Invoice No. 263 dated 31.01.2018 is
Ex.PW-1/3
iv. Copy of consignment dated 31.01.2018 is Ex.PW-1/4.
v. Carbon copy of bill/invoice No.268 dated 01.02.2018 is
Ex.PW-1/5.
vi. Carbon copy of bill/invoice no.272 dated 05.02.2018 is
Ex.PW-1/6.
vii. Carbon Copy of bill/invoice no.273 dated 06.02.2018 is
Ex.PW-1/7.
viii. Carbon Copy of bill/invoice no.292 dated 10.03.2018 is
Ex.PW-1/8.
ix. Copy of consignment slip dated 10.03.2018 is Ex.PW-1/9.
x. Carbon Copy of bill/invoice no.293 dated 11.03.2018 is
Ex.PW-1/10.
xi. Carbon Copy of bill/invoice No.304 dated 31.03.2018 is
Ex.PW-1/11.
xii. Carbon Copy of bill/invoice no.311 dated 27.03.2018 is
Ex.PW-1/12.
xiii. Carbon Copy of bill/invoice no.333 dated 29.03.2018 is
Ex.PW-1/13.
xiv. Carbon Copy of bill/invoice no.342 dated 03.04.2018 is
Ex.PW-1/14.
xv. Copy of Ledger Account of Defendant Company maintained
by the Plaintiff (total 3 running pages from page no.20-22) is
Ex.PW-1/15.
xvi. Copy of legal notice dated 28.05.2019 along with original
postal receipts is Ex.PW-1/16
xvii. Certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence is Ex.PW-
1/17.
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 15 of 58
Digitally signed
by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.04.08
15:53:46 +0530
18. PW-1 was cross-examined in part on the same day i.e. 08.12.2023
and his remaining cross examination was concluded on 13.12.2023. On
the same day, PW-1 Shri Amit Paul was discharged. Plaintiff’s Evidence
was closed on the same day and the matter was fixed for Defendant’s
Evidence.
DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE
19. On 07.05. 2024, the evidence of the defendant was recorded
before this Court. Defendant examined DW-1 Shri Ramakant Sarin. He
presented his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex. DW-1/A. He
reiterated the contents of the plaint and relied upon the following
documents: –
(1) Board Resolution dated 23.01.2020 is Ex.DW-1/1.
(2) Screenshot of whatsapp messages exchanged between Mr. Amit
Paul and Ms. Deepali is Ex.DW-1/2. (objected to by Ld. Counsel
for the plaintiff that the document did not belong to deponent).
(3) Certificate u/S 65B of Indian Evidence Act given by Ms. Deepali
is Ex.DW-1/3. (objected to by Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff that
the document did not belong to deponent).
(4) Screenshot of whatsapp message exchanged between Plaintiff and
Deepali on 24.01.2018 is Ex.DW1/4. (objected to by Ld. Counsel
for the Plaintiff that the document did not belong to deponent).
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 16 of 58
Digitally signed
by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.04.08
15:53:51 +0530
(5) Screenshot of whatsapp message exchanged between Plaintiff and
Mr. Ramakant Sarin is Ex.DW-1/5.
(6) Certificate u/S 65B of Indian Evidence Act given by M Ramakant
Sarin is Ex.DW-1/6.
(7) Email dated 30.03.2018 exchanged between Defendant is Ex.DW-
1/7.
(8) Letter dated 21.04.2018 sent from Ramdas Sales C11 is Ex.DW-
1/8, (objected to by Ld. Counsel for the pl that the document did
not belong to deponent).
(9) Letter dated 19.05.2018 sent from Ramdas Sales Corporation is
Ex.DW-1/9. (objected to by Ld. Counsel for the plaintifr that the
document did not belong to deponent).
(10) Letter dated 22.04.2018 sent from Divyanshi Agency is Ex.DW-
1/10. (objected to by Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff that the
document did not belong to deponent).
(11) Letter dated 10.05.2018 sent from Divyanshi Agency is Ex.DW-
1/11. (objected to by Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff that the
document did not belong to deponent).
(12) Letter dated 15.04.2018 sent from Vindhyachal Trading
Corporation is Ex.DW-1/12. (objected to by Ld. Counsel for the
Plaintiff that the document did not belong to deponent).
(13) Letter dated 29.04.2018 sent from Vindhyachal Trading
Corporation is Ex.DW-1/13. (objected to by Ld. Counsel for the
Plaintiff that the document did not belong to deponent).
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 17 of 58 Digitally signed
by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date:
2025.04.08
15:53:57 +0530
(14) Letter dared 15.04.2018 sent from Shree Balaji Baeries Pvt. Ltd. is
Ex.DW-1/14. (objected to by Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff that the
document did not belong to deponent).
(15) Letter dated 24.04.2018 sent from Shree Balaji Baeries Pvt. Ltd. is
Ex.DW-1/15. (objected to by Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff that the
document did not belong to deponent).
(16) Letter dated 17.04.2018 sent from Daksh Enterprises is Ex.DW-
1/16. (objected to by Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff that the
document did not belong to deponent).
(17) Letter dated 07.05.2018 sent from Daksh Enterprises is Ex.DW-
1/17. (objected to by Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff that the
document did not belong to deponent).
(18) Letter dated 18.03.2018 sent from Freunde International is
Ex.DW-1/18. (objected to by Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff that the
document did not belong to deponent).
(19) Letter dated 15.04.2018 sent from Freunde International is
Ex.DW-1/19. (objected to by Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff that the
document did not belong to deponent).
(20) Letter dated 21.04.2018 sent from MP Traders is Ex.DW-1/20.
(objected to by Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff that the document did
not belong to deponent).
(21) Email dated 01.06.2018 exchanged between Plaintiff and
Defendant is Ex.DW-1/21.
(22) Screenshot of WhatsApp message dt. 13.10.2018 exchanged
between Plaintiff and Defendant is Ex.DW-1/22.
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 18 of 58
Digitally signed
by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.04.08
15:54:04 +0530
(23) Quality report of January, 2018 prepared by Defendant is Ex.DW-
1/23.
20. DW-1 was cross examined in part by learned Counsel for Plaintiff
on 07.04. 2024 and remaining cross-examination was conducted on
12.08.2024 and on the same day, Defendants’ Evidence was closed on
the statement of Shri Ramakant Sarin, Authorized Representative of the
Defendant.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
21. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff contended that the Defendant is
liable for the payment of the stipulated amount. It was asserted that the
Plaintiff had duly maintained the ledger account of the Defendant,
Ex.PW-1/15. Additionally, the Plaintiff had served a legal notice dated
28.05.2019 to the Defendant, which was supported by original postal
receipts, Ex.PW-1/16 and a Certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian
Evidence Act, Ex.PW-1/17. Learned Counsel for Plaintiff argued that
despite repeated demands, the Defendant failed to fulfill the payment
obligations. Learned Counsel for Plaintiff stated that Plaintiff delivered
the materials to the Defendant as per the order and specifications placed
by it. He denied that the material supplied by the Plaintiff to the
Defendant was not as per the specifications or was of substandard
quality. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff emphasized that the Plaintiff’s
evidence, supported by the testimony of PW-1 Shri Amit Paul,
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 19 of 58
Digitally signed
by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.04.08
15:54:11 +0530
substantiated the claims. The cross-examination of PW-1 did not
discredit the Plaintiff’s case, and the presented documents were sufficient
to prove the Defendant’s liability for the claimed amount. Therefore, the
Plaintiff is entitled to the relief of recovery as prayed. Learned Counsel
for the Plaintiff argued that the Defendant has set up a concocted story of
Plaintiff having sent defective materials or materials of inferior quality
or the goods were not as per the terms and stipulations decided between
the parties.
22. Furthermore, the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff argued that the
Plaintiff is entitled to interest on the claimed amount. Based on the terms
agreed upon and the prevailing legal standards, the Plaintiff is justified
in seeking interest at a specified rate until the full payment is made by
the Defendant.
23. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the Defendant argued that the
present suit is not maintainable having been filed in the name of
proprietorship concern. She also argued that Defendant had placed a
bulk order for purchasing premium wrappers/labels (materials) with the
condition that the material should adhere to certain standards/description
which is a material condition. It was also stated that the defendant had
placed an oral single purchase order which the Plaintiff chose to deliver
in multiple consignments and the defendant explicitly communicated the
rejection of the consignments with reasons despite which the plaintiffs
chose to keep delivering further consignments of the same purchase
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 20 of 58
Digitally signed
by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.04.08
15:54:18 +0530
order. Learned counsel for Defendant argued that Plaintiff’s claims were
unfounded and lacked the necessary original documentary evidence to
substantiate them. The Defendant’s Counsel highlighted that the Plaintiff
failed to produce the original invoices during the examination of PW-1,
raising questions about the authenticity and admissibility of the copies
presented. It was argued that the Defendant never received the original
invoices, and that the Plaintiff has filed photocopies of carbon copies
and the same are inadmissible in evidence in absence of producing
originals on record.
24. Learned Counsel for the Defendant argued that materials would be
deemed to be accepted once the Defendant approves the same. She also
argued that Plaintiff supplied goods which were not as for description.
The rejection was communicated by the Defendant. The said
communication has been accepted by the Plaintiff. It was also argued on
behalf of Defendant that contract of sale was not complete. Reliance has
been placed on Section 24 of the Sale of Goods Act for the said
submission.
25. The learned Counsel for the Defendant also contended that there
was no ground for allowing the amount claimed through present suit of
the Plaintiff, as the materials sent through the invoices for which the
present suit has been filed was defective and not approved by the
Defendant and the property in the material never passed to the Defendant
and Defendant is therefore, not liable to pay any amount to the Plaintiff.
It was also argued that the terms regarding interest were either non-
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 21 of 58
Digitally signed
by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.04.08
15:54:24 +0530
existent or not adequately proven by the Plaintiff. Thus, the Defendant
should not be held liable for any additional financial burdens beyond
what was legitimately owed, if any.
26. In conclusion, the defense argued that the Plaintiff’s case was
weak and unsubstantiated, and therefore, the court should dismiss the
Plaintiff’s claims and deny the relief sought.
ISSUE-WISE FINDINGS
27. I have heard the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties
and have carefully gone through the record. My issue-wise findings are
as under:-
Issue No.1: Whether the suit is bad for want of territorial jurisdiction?
28. This issue does not mention that on whom the onus to prove this
issue was placed but from the issue it is clear that the onus to prove issue
no. 1 lies on Defendant.
29. The issue stands conclusively decided by the order dated
06.02.2023 whereby it was observed that the orders had been placed by
the Defendant at the office of Plaintiff, which is at 40/48, LGF, CR Park,
New Delhi-110019 and goods were also delivered/dispatched to
Defendant from above premises and therefore this court has territorial
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 22 of 58
Digitally signed
by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.04.08
15:54:31 +0530
jurisdiction. The said submission was made by the Plaintiff in the plaint
which remains unshaken even after cross examination of PW-1. The
questions put to PW-1 about place of delivery of material to be Bhopal
and PW-1 answering them in affirmative does form a part of cause of
action but not the place of complete cause of action. Learned Counsel for
Defendant had put a question to PW-1 in his cross-examination about the
place where the Plaintiff received the orders from the Defendant and
PW-1 replied as:
“The Defendant, Rajan Sarin and his employee have been
meeting me at various places such as Starbucks and Cafe
Coffee Day all around Delhi NCR such as Vasant Vihar,
Ambience Mall, Connaught Place (3 times) for a total of
about 20 times. I have also met the Defendant in my car. They
would discuss the orders as well as approval of samples.”
30. No suggestion was put to PW-1 about making incorrect statements
or making any suggestion to PW-1 about no meeting having taken place
in South-East Delhi. The above-cited statements of PW-1 support the
averments made in plaint about territorial jurisdiction of Court on basis
of which the application of the Defendant filed under Order VII Rule 11
CPC already stands dismissed vide order dated 06.02.2023. The order
dated 06.02.2023 was never challenged by the Defendant and has
achieved finality.
31. Therefore, issue No.1, i.e. ‘Whether the suit is bad for want of
territorial jurisdiction?’ is decided against the Defendant and in
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 23 of 58
Digitally signed
by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date:
2025.04.08
15:54:41 +0530
favour of Plaintiff and it is held that this Court has territorial
jurisdiction.
Issue No.2 : Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for relief of recovery as
prayed?
The onus to prove this issue was on the Plaintiff.
32. The Defendant has taken an objection that the present suit is not
maintainable and that suit has to be filed in the name of the proprietor
and not in the name of the proprietorship. It has been submitted on
behalf of the Defendant that the suit has been filed by the Proprietor, Sh.
Amit Paul, in the name of the Proprietorship Firm. It is settled law that a
proprietorship firm is not a legal entity and a suit filed in the name of a
Proprietorship Firm is not maintainable. It has also been argued by the
learned Counsel for Defendant that no document has been placed on
record to indicate that Sh. Amit Paul is the sole proprietor of the firm.
33. The learned Counsel for Defendant submitted that even though the
Defendant shed clarity on the relevant point of law regarding the
maintainability of the suit at the very outset itself in the Written
Statement and also during the proceeding of the suit especially cross-
examination of PW-1 on 13.12.2023, the Plaintiff did not cure the defect.
34. Learned Counsel for the Defendant argued that a suit can be
dismissed at the final stage of proceedings on ground of non-
maintainability, and has relied on the observations of Hon’ble High
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 24 of 58
Digitally signed
by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.04.08
15:54:46 +0530
Court of Delhi in the case of Miraj Marketing Corporation v Vishakha
Engineering and Another, 115 (2004) DLT 471 (DB) which read as:
“So far issue No. 4 is concerned, it was held by the learned trial
court that the present suit had been brought in the name of M/s.
Miraj Marketing Corporation. through one authorised
representative Mr. Amitabh Sharma who was not the proprietor
and no authority of Mr. Amitabh Sharma was proved on record.
Mr. A.K. Pandey, PW-1, filed affidavit by way of evidence
wherein he had stated that he was the proprietor of the Plaintiff
firm and that the Plaintiff was a sole proprietorship firm. He had
not stated in his affidavit that the plaint was signed and verified
by him.”
“11 It was submitted that the suit was instituted in the name of
the proprietorship firm and, therefore, the said suit was not
maintainable. The learned trial court also upheld the said
contention and dismissed the suit on that score also. Therefore,
the aforesaid plea is very relevant and calls for in depth
consideration by us. A proprietorship firm has no legal entity like
a registered firm. A suit cannot be instituted in the name of an
unregistered proprietorship firm and the said suit is to be
instituted in the name of the proprietor. It is an admitted position
in the plaint that the Plaintiff is a proprietorship firm.”
“12 In that view of the matter, we agree with the findings and
the conclusions recorded by the trial court that the suit was not
instituted by a duly authorized person. Accordingly, we find no
infirmity in the judgment and order passed by the learned trial
court dismissing the suit on the ground that the suit was not
properly instituted.”
Objection raised by Defendant: The suit has to be filed in the name
of the proprietor and not in the name of the proprietorship.
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 25 of 58 Digitally signed
by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.04.08
15:54:52 +0530
35. No issue has been framed in the present suit as regards the suit not
having been filed by a duly authorized person. However, the same is
being dealt with herewith.
36. The cited judgment has been perused. Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi in the case of Miraj Marketing Corporation v Vishakha
Engineering and Another,(Supra) upheld the decision of learned trial
court because the Plaintiff was described to be a proprietorship firm and
represented through Shri Amitabh Sharma. Shri Amitabh Sharma had
neither signed the plaint nor he signed the power which was filed in the
present case and expressed agreement with the findings and the
conclusions recorded by the trial court that the suit was not instituted by
a duly authorised person.
37. It has been argued by learned Counsel for the Defendant that the
Plaintiff has been filed by a non-juristic entity i.e. M/s S.S. Enterprises
through Shri Amit Paul, whereas as per settled legal proposition, in the
fitness of things, it should have been mentioned as Shri Amit Paul,
Proprietor of M/s S.S. Enterprises. Perusal of this cited judgment shows
that the suit was filed by a proprietorship firm through an AR.
38. Evidently, in the present case, the name of the proprietor of the
Plaintiff firm is available in the Memo of Parties and as such it cannot be
said that the suit is not filed by the proprietor in his name. Mere
reference/mention of his firm’s name prior to his name does not mean
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 26 of 58
Digitally signed
by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.04.08
15:54:59 +0530
that suit is not filed by him. The Defendant has also relied on Svapn
Constructions vs IDPL Employees Cooperative Group, 127(2006) DLT
80 in support of its submissions that the suit is not maintainable on
account of not having been filed in the name of proprietor. Similar
objection was taken in the matter titled M/S S.K Agencies vs M/S DFM
Foods, ARB.P. 1201/2022, decided on 20 December, 2023 and reliance
was placed by the respondent on Svapn Constructions vs IDPL
Employees Cooperative Group(Supra). Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
rejected the contention of the respondent and observed that:
“18. There is again no merit in the contention of the respondent
that the present petition is liable to be dismissed since the
petitioner is a sole proprietorship firm. In Svapn Constructions,
relied upon by the respondent, it has been held that a sole
proprietorship firm does not have any legal status and in case
sole proprietorship firm wants to file a suit, it has to be in the
name of the proprietor on behalf of the sole proprietorship firm
and not in the name of sole proprietorship firm. The said decision
is distinguishable inasmuch as in the present case, it has been
averred in the petition that Mr.Satyendra Kumar Dixit is the
proprietor of the M/s S.K Agencies. The affidavit in support of the
petition and statement of truth has been filed by Mr. Satyendra
Kumar Dixit. Therefore, the present petition is instituted by Mr.
Satyendra Kumar Dixit as the proprietor of M/s. S. K. Agencies”.
39. Similar was the observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
matter of Rasiklal Manikchand Dhariwal & Anr versus M/s S.S.Food
Products, Civil Appeal No. 10112 of 2011, (Arising out of SLP
(Civil) No. 27180 of 2008), decided on 25th November 2011, wherein the
plaint filed by the Plaintiff described the title of the Plaintiff as “Messrs.
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 27 of 58
Digitally signed by
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.04.08
15:55:05 +0530
M.S.S. Food Products, Plot No. D, Sector-E, Sanver Road Industrial
Area, Indore, Through – Proprietor – Nilesh Vadhwani, Son of Shri
Ashok Vadhwani, aged 27 years, Occupation – Business.” It was held by
Hon’ble Supreme Court that the description of the Plaintiff in the plaint
at best may be called to be not in proper order inasmuch as the name of
Nilesh Vadhwani must have preceded the business name in the cause
title. This is not an illegality which goes to the root of the matter.
40. RFA no.19/2020, titled M/S.Anil Bearings vs M/S State Motors
& Another, decided on 12.02.2010, was filed by the appellant assailing
the impugned judgment dated 19.11.2009 passed by the learned
Additional District Judge dismissing the suit of the Plaintiff as not
maintainable on the ground that the suit was filed by the proprietorship
concern, which is not a legal entity. In the suit, the name and description
of the Plaintiff was given in the following manner:-
“M/s. Anil Bearings, 633/4, Hamilton Road, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi
– 110006 Through its proprietor Shri Anil Thapar”
41. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi allowed the appeal by observing that
that :
“The learned trial court adopted a hyper-technical approach in
dismissing the suit, igno ring the fact that at the most it was a
case of mis-description of the parties, as was clear from a reading
of the plaint in its entirety. Thus, in paragraph 1 of the plaint, it
was clearly mentioned that the Plaintiff was a proprietorship
establishment and Shri Anil Thapar was the sole proprietor of the
Plaintiff establishment, having its office at 633/4, Hamilton Road,
Kashmiri Gate, Delhi – 110006. In paragraph 2 of the plaint, it
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 28 of 58
Digitally signed
by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.04.08
15:55:12 +0530
was elaborated that the suit was being filed by Shri Anil Thapar,
who was the proprietor and was well conversant with the facts
and circumstances of the case and competent to file, sign and
verify the suit and to do all other necessary acts for pursuing the
case against the Defendants. Then again, in consonance with the
provisions of Order VI Rules 14 and 15 CPC, the plaint was
signed and verified by Shri Anil Thapar as Plaintiff and Shri Anil
Thapar had also furnished his affidavit in support of the plaint.”
42. In the present matter also, the plaint has been signed, verified and
instituted by Mr. Amit Paul, the proprietor of the Proprietor firm. Even if
Mr. Amit Paul has not filed any document on record to show that he is
the proprietor of M/s S.S. Enterprises, the same has not been disputed by
the Defendant. During his cross-examination, DW-1 stated that he
started dealing with Mr. Amit Paul under the belief that he was
proprietor of the Plaintiff, but Mr. Amit Paul had not given him any
proof regarding his proprietorship. In the same breath, DW-1 stated that
he did not ask Mr. Amit Paul for the proof as in normal circumstances, it
was not required. In his whole cross-examination, DW-1 referred to
Plaintiff to mean Mr. Amit Paul and not Plaintiff showing that for
Defendant, Mr. Amit Paul and Plaintiff meant same entities and not as
two different entities.
43. Therefore, the absence of filing any document by Mr. Amit Paul
in support of him being proprietor of S.S. Industries is neither fatal to the
maintainability of the case nor is it required. Accordingly, the objection
of the Defendant about the suit being not maintainable is dismissed.
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 29 of 58
Digitally signed
by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.04.08
15:55:18 +0530
Objection raised by Defendant: The invoices have been created by
the Plaintiff and Defendant did not receive the invoices.
44. The Defendant has raised an objection that the invoices relied
upon by the Plaintiff have not been filed in original and therefore cannot
be taken into consideration. Learned Counsel for Defendant submitted
that the invoices submitted by the Plaintiff are unilateral documents that
have been created by them and were never signed or consented to by the
Defendant and stated that the invoices were never signed by the
Defendant and it was admitted by the PW-1 in his cross-examination
dated 13.12.2023 (Ques. 60). She also submitted that the Plaintiff has
failed to put on record any documents to prove that the invoices
submitted by them are genuine or that they were delivered to the
Defendant. She also stated that in fact in the Plaint at para 3, the Plaintiff
stated that he has attached original invoices with the Plaint, which
clearly shows that the invoices were never delivered to the Defendant
and Plaintiff was in possession of the same.
45. The correct facts are that the Plaintiff has not filed original
invoices in the suit though so stated in the plaint. It is well within
knowledge of Defendant that Plaintiff has not filed original invoices
with the plaint and has placed copy of carbon copies of the same on
record.
46. However, there is no requirement for the invoices to have been
countersigned by the Defendant for the validity of the invoices.
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 30 of 58
Digitally signed
by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.04.08
15:55:24 +0530
47. As regards the exhibiting of these invoices, learned Local
Commissioner has specifically recorded in cross-examination of PW-1
dated 13.12 2023 in reference to question no. 57 as below:
“Q 57. Have you got the original invoices?
Ans. No. I have got the carbon copies of the same since the
originals have been sent to the Defendant. (Vol. I cannot have the
originals since they are required to send the material inter-state)
(Local Commissioner note: that the witness today has produced 3
separate Bill Books which contain the carbon copy of Ex. PW-1/1,
Ex. PW-1/2, Ex. PW-1/3, Ex. PW-1/4, Ex. PW-1/5, Ex. PW-1/6,
Ex. PW-1/7, Ex. PW-1/7, Ex. PW-1/8, Ex. PW-1/9, Ex. PW-1/10,
Ex. PW-1/11, Ex. PW-1/12, Ex. PW-1/13 and Ex. PW-1/14. The
same has been perused and verified as the same documents are
photocopies of which have been filed and exhibited)Q 58. Have you lied on oath that the originals of the invoices were
with you?
Ans. I treat the carbon copies as originals.”
48. No objection was taken to exhibiting of these invoices by learned
Counsel for Defendant and even otherwise, the photocopy of carbon
copies of invoices were exhibited after comparing with the Bill Book
produced by PW-1.
49. The submission of learned Counsel for Plaintiff that the Defendant
did not receive the invoices is belied by the e-mails tendered as exhibits
by DW-1 in his examination in chief. The e-mail dated 30.03.2018 of
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 31 of 58
Digitally signed by
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.04.08
15:55:30 +0530
Defendant sent to the Plaintiff, Ex. DW-1/7 and e-mail dated 01.06.2018
of Defendant sent to the Plaintiff, Ex. DW-1/8 specify in detail the
alleged issues in respect to quality of material sent to the Defendant
mentioning the specific Bill numbers/invoice numbers and the Plaintiff
has filed the present recovery suit which includes these Bills/Invoices.
Further, Ex. DW-1/7 and Ex. DW-1/8 have been written after
completion of sending of all the consignments by the Plaintiff. Had the
Defendant any intention to reject the materials, the same would have
been exercised soon after receipt of first or second such consignment.
The Defendant has not disputed the contents of the invoices/or the
invoices filed by the Plaintiff on record to be different from the ones
received by the Defendant.
50. Therefore, the Plaintiff has proved that the invoices for which the
present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff which have been filed with the
plaint are same as the ones which were delivered to Defendant alongwith
materials.
Stand taken by Defendant: It was a Sale by Description and that as
per the agreement between the parties, it had been decided that the
materials would have to be of the standard agreed upon. Plaintiff
and the Defendant had agreed that materials shall only be accepted
once the Defendant i.e. Biscuit Basket Foods, to whom materials
were supplied approves the quality of the same. Because of rejection
of the material by the Defendant, Biscuit Basket, there was no sale
as per Section 24 of Sale of Goods Act.
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 32 of 58
Digitally signed
by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.04.08
15:55:37 +0530
51. The Defendant has taken a defence that it was a sale by
description as stated in Preliminary Submissions in the Written
Statement and that as per the agreement between the parties, it had been
decided that the materials would have to be of the standard mentioned in
para 2 of the preliminary submissions of the Written Statement i.e.
“a. Printing Quality has to be good, neat and clean.
b. The Lamination quality has to be good. It has to be ensured that
there is no delamination.
c. Thickness of the lamination (GSM) should be 42-44 microns.
d. The appropriate weight of the wrapping rolls should be 12-14
kg
e. The eye-mark printing has to be solid print.
f. Vignette Size has to be same from both ends.
g. The picture placing has to be at the centre.”
52. In its replication, the Plaintiff has denied existence of any such
agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and submitted that
initially before placing purchase order, Defendant had asked the Plaintiff
to send samples of the goods. The Plaintiff has stated that after receiving
the sample, the Defendant appointed one executive at Delhi and under
the supervision and after approval of that executive, the goods/materials
were sent to the Defendant. The Plaintiff also submitted in the
replication that the Defendant continued to purchase material and the
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 33 of 58
Digitally signed
by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.04.08
15:55:44 +0530
Plaintiff supplied the material to the Defendant as per its order after
approval of the executive of the Defendant.
53. The Defendant has submitted that it was agreed by the parties that
if the materials were of an inferior quality, then the Plaintiff would be
under a mandatory obligation to take the materials back and rectify the
default within a reasonable time. Otherwise, the contract would be
treated as repudiated, and the Defendant would not be liable to make any
payment.
54. PW-1 was cross-examined at length about the submissions made
in the written statement and its replication. The relevant part is
reproduced below:
“Q 26. How was the quality/size of the materials decided?
Ans. Size was given by the Defendant and the quality parameters
have also been informed to the Plaintiff by the Defendant.
Q 27. Was it your responsibility to deliver defect free goods to the
Defendant?
Ans. Yes.”
55. PW-1 admitted that he was doing business with Defendant as late
as in January 2018. Prior to this, Ex. PW-1/X/D/2 was put to PW-1
which is part of Ex. PW-1/X/D/3 as can be seen from its contents. It is
dated 24 Jan 2018. It reads as(it has many spelling and punctuation
errors):
NEERA
BHARIHOKECS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 34 of 58 Digitally
NEERA
signed byBHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.04.08
15:55:52 +0530
“Sir, tell me core inside dia & outside dia, most probably it is
3″(inches). It was a trial run to excess col.code. we propose to
use in printing. We have detected the % of ink we have to apply on
Bopp to get the exact match. which we got finally. But sending of
material to Bhopal was a mistake on our part. As per as our
lamination we feel it is OK. If not tell us it is heat sealing or not. If
NOT, then we have to increase the adhesive & give at least 24 hr
to get dry.” In Ex. PW-1/D/X3, below this message, it has been
written “PL send this massage to sarin sir.pl”
56. On seeing the same, PW-1 stated that he did not remember to have
sent this message, but it might be that his staff would have sent it. He
admitted that the message was sent by his mobile number. But no
question was put to PW-1 as to whom it was sent.
57. PW-1 was put the following question about the material:
“Q 28. Did the Defendant ever write to you regarding deficient
quality of material supplied?
Ans. No and never. (Witness is emphatic in his denial).
Witness is confronted with WhatsApp message dated 24.01.2018,
Ex. PW-1/X/D3 and asked “Does the reference in WhatsApp
message to ‘Sarin Sir’ refer to Mr. Ramakant Sarin? (Objected by
the learned Counsel for Plaintiff for admissibility, relevance and
mode of proof)
Ans. I do not know.”
58. No further question was put to PW-1 about the said document. No
inference, adverse or favourable, can therefore be drawn from Ex. PW-
1/X/D/3 or Ex. PW-1/X/D/2.
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 35 of 58 Digitally signed
by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.04.08
15:55:59 +0530
59. Section 41 of Sale of Goods Act provides as:
“41. Buyer’s right of examining the goods.–
(1) Where goods are delivered to the buyer which he has not
previously examined, he is not deemed to have accepted them
unless and until he has had a reasonable opportunity of
examining them for the purpose of ascertaining whether they are
in conformity with the contract.
(2) Unless otherwise agreed, when the seller tenders delivery of
goods to the buyer, he is bound, on request, to afford the buyer a
reasonable opportunity of examining the goods for the purpose of
ascertaining whether they are in conformity with the contract.”
60. The Plaintiff has submitted that the material was checked by the
executive of Defendant. The questions were put to PW-1 and their
respective answers are being reproduced as they are self-speaking:
“Q36. Who sent the final product to the Defendant. What it the
third party or was it the Plaintiff?
Ans. I used to send.
Q37. Did you check whether the goods were as per the purchase
orders issued by the Defendant before dispatching the goods to
Bhopal?
Ans. Yes. I used to check every consignment before dispatch.
Q38. Was Mr. Sarin obligated to make the payments after receipt
of goods in Bhopal?
Ans. Yes. NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Digitally signed by
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.04.08
15:56:06 +0530
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 36 of 58
Q39. Did Mr. Sarin approve the goods sent by you?
Ans. Mr. Ramamkant Sarin had sent certain executives to look
after the product and approve the material before sending it to
Bhopal.
Q40. Have you placed on record any document to indicate that
the goods were approved by the executives?
Ans. It is all on verbal basis since a sample of the goods would be
shown to the executive and after approval the consignment would
be sent. The consignment was large in size so only a sample
would be shown.
Q41. Can you name the executive?
Ans. I do not remember.
Q42. How many executives were there?
Ans. One or two.
Q43. Was it mutually decided from the beginning that the
executive would be the person to approve the quality of goods
before dispatch?
Ans. Yes.
Q44. At what stage did the executive check the quality of goods?
Ans. The executive was shown a sample of the goods after
production but before the goods were sent to Bhopal.
Q45. Who used to monitor the production of the goods?
Ans. I did.
Q46. Did you call the executive before dispatching the goods?
NEERA
BHARIHOKECS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 37 of 58 Digitally signed
by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.04.08
15:56:13 +0530
Ans. The executive would be called after production of goods but
before dispatch.”
Q47. Have you signed the affidavit in your replication after
reading the replication?
Ans. Yes I have read the replication.
Q48. Is the replication prepared by your lawyer as per the
information provided by you?
Ans. Yes.”
61. In support of its defence, learned Counsel for confronted PW-1
with point A1 to A2 of the Replication which reads as “It is submitted
that there was some deficiency in the sample but thereafter Defendant
appointed executive at Delhi to inspect and check the materials. The
material was duly checked and verified by the executive of Defendant
company, only then it was supplied to the Defendant company.”
62. Learned Counsel for Defendant put the following questions to
PW-1 about this portion and an e-mail dated 30.03.2018 sent by
Defendant to Plaintiff highlighting the alleged defects in materials sent
vide invoices for which the present suit has been filed:
“Q49. (Witness is confronted with para no.7 of the reply to the
preliminary submission of the replication Marked from Point Al to
A2) The witness is further asked as to whether the email dated
30.03.2018 was replied to only verbally/telephonically as
mentioned in the confronted portion?
Ans. I do not remember since it is very old.
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Digitally signed
by NEERA
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 38 of 58 BHARIHOKE
Date:
2025.04.08
15:56:19 +0530
Q51. Is it correct to state that there was some deficiency in the
sample provided by you?
Ans. There was no deficiency from the Plaintiff’s side.”
63. Therefore, the testimony of PW-1 remained in lines with the
submissions made in the replication at point A1 to A2 and remained
unshaken.
“(Witness is confronted with para no.6 of preliminary
submissions of replication Mark B1 to B2 wherein it states “It is
submitted that there was some deficiency in sample but thereafter
Defendant company appointed executive at Delhi to inspect and
check the materials. That the material was duly checked and
verified by the executive of Defendant co, only then it was
supplied to the Defendant company.”)
Materials were always seen, passed and only then supplied.
Q52. Who showed the samples to the Executive?
Ans. I did.
Q53. Where did you show the samples?
I have already answered it previously in Q 21.
The answer to Q 21 was that:
“The Defendant, Rajan Sarin and his employee have been
meeting me at various places such as Starbucks and Cafe Coffee
Day all around Delhi NCR such as Vasant Vihar, Ambience Mall,
Connaught Place (3 times) for a total of about 20 times. I have
also met the Defendant in my car. They would discuss the orders
as well as approval of samples.”
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 39 of 58
Digitally signed
by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.04.08
15:56:25 +0530
Q54. Was Mr. Sarin there when you showed the samples?
Ans. Sometimes he was there, at least 10 times.
Q55. Does that mean Mr. Sarin was also responsible for the
approval of the samples?
Ans. Yes. He used to come along with the Executive sometimes
and both of them together used to pass the samples. I have met
him separately also, apart from approval of samples.
Q56. If Mr. Sarin or the executive did not approve the sample,
was it your responsibility to rectify the defects in the sample?
Ans. Yes. I did all the required changes as per their requirement
before printing and supplying.”
64. Perusal of cross-examination of PW-1, specially answer to
question no.56, establishes that his testimony remained uncontroverted
and unshaken as regards the submission of the Plaintiff that inspection,
examination and approval of the goods was given by Defendant or its
executive before dispatching of the goods by the Plaintiff.
65. This part of cross-examination also corroborates the submission of
the Plaintiff that part of cause of action has arisen in Delhi and also that
the materials were checked and approved by the DW-1 or executive of
Defendant before being dispatched to Defendant. No suggestion was put
to PW-1 pursuant to the replies given by him that he was making
incorrect or false statements.
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 40 of 58
Digitally signed
by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.04.08
15:56:30 +0530
66. PW-1 also stated that he did not know as to who used to receive
goods in factory of Defendant and he had never been to factory of
Defendant.
67. On being asked as to how he used to know that the goods have
been received by DW-1, PW-1 replied that Mr. Sarin used to call and
inform him that the goods have been received and again said Mr. Sarin
never called him, somebody from the factory did.
68. PW-1 denied the suggestion that Mr. Sarin i.e. DW-1 was not
satisfied with the materials. PW-1 was confronted with Ex. PW1/X/D/4
(which is same document which has been tendered by DW-1 as Ex. DW-
1/43) from point C1 to C2 and Ex. PW1/X/D/5 from point D1 to D2 and
PW-1 responded that these documents had nothing to do with printing
but related to Core. PW-1 explained Core to be a process involved in
printing. Specific question was put to PW -1 whether the Defendant had
a problem with the process of Core which was used in printing by
Plaintiff and PW-1 replied that Core of Plaintiff was ok and there was
some problem at the user’s end machine. PW-1 was put a question if
Core had anything to do with the final product to which PW-1 responded
that Core has no relation to the printing and lamination. Again, no
suggestion was put to PW-1 that the submissions made by him were
incorrect.
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 41 of 58 Digitally signed
by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.04.08
15:56:36 +0530
69. The case of the Plaintiff is further fortified by the response of PW-
1 to the questions put to him in respect of payment to be made by the
Defendant in respect of the material in question. The relevant part of
cross examination is reproduced below:
“Q 70. Was Mr. Ramakant obligated to make the payment once the
goods were delivered to Bhopal and approved as per the
specification?
Ans. I had asked Mr. Ramakant for advance payment however he
had stated that the payment would be made once goods were
delivered.
Q 71. Did you agree with this payment term with Mr. Ramakant?
Ans. I would always ask for advance payment but he would never
give/has given.
Q 71. Do you have any document to show that you had asked the
Defendant for advanced payment?
Ans. No. All discussions regarding payment were verbal.
Q 72. Was payment to be made in cash?
Ans. No. All payments were to be made via cheque.
Q 73. When was advanced payment to be made by Defendant?
Ans. The Defendant was placing orders continuously without
paying for previous consignment. Thus I would ask the Defendant
for advanced payment for previous goods sold before I could
supply the Defendant their new orders. However the Defendant
has never paid a single rupee.
NEERA
BHARIHOKEDigitally signed
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 42 of 58 by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date:
2025.04.08
15:56:42 +0530
Q 75. What was the usual practice by which orders would be
placed by Defendant on you?
Ans. I’ve already answered. (Witness is confronted with Ex. PW-
1/X/D/4 At point E1 to E2 stating that orders have been placed via
WhatsApp) this extract has nothing to do with the present case but
has to do with another company called Trend port.”
70. Suggestion was put to PW-1 that he was deposing falsely.
However, on perusal of Ex. PW-1/X/D/4, it is noticed that Ex.
PW-1/X/D/4 talks of labels of Beer and the present case does not pertain
to consignment of materials by the Plaintiff to the Defendant for beer.
Therefore, the statement made by PW-1 in respect of Ex. PW-1/X/D/4
that this extract has nothing to do with the present case stands proved.
What is equally relevant to discredit the contents of Ex. PW-1/X/D/4 to
be pertaining to this case is its date i.e. 30.07.2018, much after the
alleged date of Defendant requesting the Plaintiff to take back the
materials (January and March 2018).
71. In view of observations made above, the Plaintiff has proved by
preponderance of liability that the quality of materials was inspected,
checked and approved by DW-1 and/or executive of Defendant and also
that Plaintiff used to check every consignment before dispatch.
Therefore, Plaintiff has proved that Defendant always used to inspect
and approve the materials before dispatching to Defendant and therefore,
the contention of the Defendant that property in materials did not pass to
the Defendant as the goods were substandard and of inferior quality is
not sustainable.
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Digitally signed
by NEERA
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 43 of 58 BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.04.08
15:56:48 +0530
72. The Defendant has taken a defense that the Defendant examined
the materials after the same was delivered to the Defendant in Bhopal
and immediately informed the Plaintiff that the same were substandard
and were of an inferior quality through various telephonic calls such as
WhatsApp messages dated 19.01.2018 and 24.01.2018. The Defendant
has also submitted that the Plaintiff admitted the deficiency and further
stated that it was a mistake on his part to send the goods to Bhopal.
73. The Defendant has submitted that the Plaintiff gave assurance that
he would improve the materials and make the necessary changes.
However, the Plaintiff failed to adhere to his assurance and did not
replace the inferior quality materials and the materials supplied
thereafter were also of substandard quality.
74. However, DW-1 in its affidavit of evidence has taken a
contradictory stand in its affidavit of evidence where in Para 14, DW-1
has taken a stand that first delivery of wrappers was given in last week
of January 2018. Plaintiff has filed invoice bearing no.263 dated
31.01.2018 The Defendant has not given any explanation as to how
deficiency in material allegedly informed through WhatApp messages
dated 19.01.2018 and 24.01.2018 were discovered by the Defendant
when as per case of Defendant, the materials were sent to the Defendant
on 31.01.2018. Therefore, DW-1 has itself deposed the facts which are
contradictory to the contents of Written Statement. Therefore, the
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 44 of 58
Digitally signed
by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.04.08
15:56:55 +0530
Defendant has failed to prove that WhatsApp messages dated 19.01.2018
and 24.01.2018 were sent in respect of the materials supplied by the
Plaintiff to Defendant and the Plaintiff has proved that these WhatsApp
messages were in respect of the sample of materials which was agreed to
be supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendant and not with respect to the
materials supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendant after removal of the
defects/deficiencies pointed by the Defendant.
75. Even otherwise, the submission of the Defendant in the Written
Statement is that the materials supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendant
were deficient and sub-standard. The deficiencies have been mentioned
as:
a. The printing quality was very poor and images on the wrapper
were blurred.
b. The Lamination quality was poor. The paper was separating
into layers and opening up during the process of sealing.
c. Wrapping rolls were too big and heavy. The appropriate weight
should be 12-14 kg. However, the gross weight of the wrapper
was 31 kg.
d. The eye-mark was not proper, because of which there was
wastage of paper and machine was unable to detect the eye mark
and complete the sealing process. As a result, the sealing had to be
done manually.
e. There were lines in wrapper due to improper drying of ink.
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 45 of 58
Digitally signed
by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.04.08
15:57:03 +0530
f. Thickness of the lamination (GSM) was uneven. Standard to be
maintained should be 42-44 microns. Whereas the wrappers
received were of over 55 microns.
g. Vignette Size was uneven from both ends. Thus, the design
image was not as per the sample.
The same is evident from the report prepared by the quality in-
charge of the Defendant in January 2018.
76. The Defendant has relied on Ex. DW-1/7 i.e. e-mail dated
30.03.2018 and Ex. DW-1/21 i.e. email dated 01.06.2018 sent by one
Deepali, Food Technologist of Defendant to Plaintiff which mentions 8
bills i.e.
i. Bill dated 31.01.2018, Bill no. 263,
ii. Bill dated 01.02.2018, Bill no. 268,
iii. Bill dated 05.02.2018, Bill no. 272,
iv. Bill dated 06.02.2018, Bill no. 273,
v. Bill dated 10.03.2018, Bill no. 292,
vi. Bill dated 11.03.2018, Bill no. 293
vii. Bill dated 27.03.2018, Bill no. 311
viii. Bill dated 29.03.2017, Bill no. 333
77. In the said mails it has also been written that the issues mentioned
were found in these Bills. Therefore Ex.DW-1/7 and Ex.DW-1/21
corroborate the version of PW-1 that the WhatsApp messages dated
19.01.2018 and 24.01.2018 do not pertain to the materials supplied by
the Plaintiff to the Defendant but to the samples which were resolved by
the Plaintiff as stated by PW-1 in his cross examination. WhatsApp
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 46 of 58
Digitally signed
by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.04.08
15:57:10 +0530
messages dated 19.01.2018 and 24.01.2018 could not have been
exchanged between the parties in respect of the material supplied by
Plaintiff to the Defendant says according to Ex.DW-1/7 and Ex.DW-
1/21, The first bill under which material had been withheld is dated
31.01.2018 and therefore the quality issues, if any, in that material could
not have been pointed by the Defendant to the Plaintiff.
78. The Plaintiff has filed the present suit even in respect of the goods
which were supplied by him to the Defendant prior to 31.01.2018 i.e.
Bill no.206 dated 21.12.2017 and since in Ex.DW-1/7 and Ex.DW-1/21,
there is no reference to the material supplied through this Bill to be
defective, Whatsapp messages dated 19.01.2018 and 24.01.2018 could
not pertain to the materials supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendant
through this Bill i.e. through Bill no.206 dated 21.12.2017.
79. Coming to the objections of the Defendant about the defect in the
goods supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, any person experienced
in the packaging industry like in this case, the Defendant/DW-1, could
have come to know on physical examination of the material supplied by
the Plaintiff to it/him is defective as some of the mentioned defects are
of such nature that will be visible to naked eye on physical examination
or could have been tested by simple tests or instruments without putting
the rolls of the material to the machine for wrapping and sealing like :-
The printing quality was very poor and images on the wrapper
were blurred
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 47 of 58
Digitally signed
by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.04.08
15:57:17 +0530
The Lamination quality was poor, the paper was separating into
layers
Wrapping rolls were too big and heavy. The appropriate weight
should be 12-14 kg. However, the gross weight of the wrapper
was 31 kg. Anybody can note the difference between weight of
wrapper of 12-14 kgs and that of 31 kgs and also the capacity of
its own machine if it will be able to bear and accept double the
standard weight,
eye-mark was not proper,
There were lines in wrapper due to improper drying of ink
Thickness of the lamination (GSM) was uneven
Vignette Size was uneven from both ends.
80. This observation is supported by Ex. DW-1/23 tendered by DW-1
in his examination in chief. Ex. DW-1/23 is a photocopy and is not
admissible in evidence. The Defendant, even otherwise, failed to prove
the same since the Defendant did not examine its author.
81. As the Defendant has relied on it, the document is being referred
to. According to the Defendant, the first consignment received by it from
the Plaintiff is the material sent by the Plaintiff by Invoice/ Bill dated
31.01.2018. The consignment note of the goods having been given to the
transporter is also of the same date.
82. It is not understandable as to how the materials reached in Bhopal
on the same day and how the quality in charge of Defendant could
examine the material in January 2018 as its report is undated but is of
January 2018. The report deals with all the parameters mentioned by
Defendant in its written statement by the Defendant and provides that
printing quality is blurred, GSM is above 55 microns, Eye mark printing
NEERA
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 48 of 58 BHARIHOKE
Digitally signed by
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.04.08
15:57:24 +0530
is faded and raw colour, Delamination is easily delaminating with hand,
sealing count 2 packets/1.6 sec, sealing quality-separating after seal,
vignette size-differ in size, picture placing shifted to left, color out of
standard dark red picture and giving the status of all the parameters as
failed. The note on Ex.DW-1/23 is “Material reject due to poor quality
and found every standard out.”
83. If physical examination of the material supplied revealed so many
defects, how and why would any prudent person choose to use such
material for packaging its biscuits and rusks and that too after report of
its quality in charge is of rejection of the said material. The Defendant
has created documents to defeat the legitimate claim of the Plaintiff. The
Defendant claiming to be having experience over years would not have
accepted these materials had these been defective and would not have
continued to accept the consignment of the materials supplied by
Plaintiff one after another in a span of three months. No prudent business
entity will accept that and put itself at a loss. The submissions of the
Defendant do not merit any consideration.
84. In view of the unshaken testimony of PW-1 during his cross-
examination that the goods supplied were not defective and that is the
reason that the Defendant continued to place orders and also that the
Defendant had cooked up false stories to evade payment, the Defendant
was required to prove on record that the materials provided by the
Plaintiff were defective or were of inferior quality. The Defendant has
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 49 of 58
Digitally signed
by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.04.08
15:57:30 +0530
not produced anything on record in support of its defence that the
materials supplied by the Plaintiff were defective. The Defendant has
only tendered the e-mails sent by Biscuit Basket, the Defendant, about
the aforementioned defects in the materials supplied by the Plaintiff
through the Bills mentioned in the Ex. DW-1/7 i.e. email dated
30.03.2018 and Ex. DW-1/21 i.e. email dated 01.06.2018. The said mails
at best prove the fact of information by the Defendant to the Plaintiff but
cannot be equated with proof of rejection of material by Defendant.
85. DW-1 has stated in his cross-examination that 95% of the material
supplied to Defendant by Plaintiff is lying with it and the Plaintiff could
take it back but did not produce any of such defective material before
this Court in evidence. The two e-mails i.e. Ex. PW-1/7 and Ex. PW-
1/21 can at best be considered as intimations of defective material but
not as proof of the materials supplied to be defective. Further, if the
Defendant had put only 5% of the materials supplied by the Plaintiff to
the Defendant, how it could suffer a loss of Rs.31,75,000/- by using 5%
material of Plaintiff and the figure given in Para 8 of the Reply on merits
in the Written Statement is concocted by the fact that in table drawn in
Para no, 8, there is mention of 7 Dealers who returned the material
supplied by Defendant to the Plaintiff but the quantum of loss allegedly
suffered by the Defendant in respect of Dealer named MP Traders has
not been mentioned and the total amount mentioned in the column of
TOTAL comes to be Rs.31,75,000/- only but the Defendant has placed
on record typed copies of some correspondence allegedly sent by these
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 50 of 58
Digitally signed
by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.04.08
15:57:41 +0530
dealers to the Defendant i.e. Ex. DW-1/9 to Ex. DW-1/20 and Ex. DW-
1/20 is typed copy of alleged communication sent by dealer MP Traders
on 21.04.2018 to the Defendant. The language, the expressions and the
contents of all these exhibits are similar. In absence of the Defendant
producing originals of any of these alleged communications between the
so called Dealers of the Defendant and the Defendant, the Defendant has
miserably failed to prove the contentions of the material supplied by the
Plaintiff to be suffering from the alleged defects as well as the Defendant
has failed to prove rejection of the materials supplied by him to his
dealers.
86. I concur with submissions of learned Counsel for Plaintiff that the
Defendant has forged Ex. DW-1/9 to Ex. DW-1/20 in support of its
frivolous defence.
87. The Defendant had filed an application under Order VIII Rule 1
A(3) CPC to bring additional documents on record by submitting that
those documents could not be filed earlier and were proposed to be filed
after conclusion of evidence of Plaintiff which was dismissed vide order
dated 16.01.2024. Ms. Deepali had given the Certificate under section 65
B of Evidence Act in support of the documents which were proposed to
be filed as additional documents. Deeming the contents of the Ex. DW-
1/7 and Ex. DW-1/21 were true, Deepali is the author of these two
exhibits, the Defendant could and should have produced said
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Digitally signed
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 51 of 58 by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.04.08
15:58:04 +0530
Ms.Deepali, Food Technologist as its witness. But the Defendant did not
produce her and thus failed to prove Ex. DW-1/7 and Ex. DW-1/21.
88. The onus was on the Defendant to produce, if nothing, some part
of the alleged defective material in its evidence or to summon a witness
from Biscuit Basket or its dealers who allegedly returned the products of
the Defendant packed by that alleged defective material which was
supplied by Defendant i.e. author of any of the exhibits/dealers from Ex.
DW-1/9 to Ex. DW-1/20. He is admittedly CEO of Biscuit Basket, the
Defendant. He could have at least produced alleged defective materials
supplied by Plaintiff or products returned by any of those dealers or a
witness from Biscuit Basket to depose in support of the defence of the
Defendant that the materials were of inferior quality or were defective.
The Defendant has failed miserably to prove that the materials were of
inferior quality and substantiates the stand of the Plaintiff that the mails
sent by the Defendant to Plaintiff were written to evade making payment
due under the invoices to the Plaintiff.
89. The Defendant has been unable to prove its defence that the goods
were not inspected and approved by its executives in the factory/office
of the Plaintiff before being dispatched by the Plaintiff to the Defendant
whereas the Plaintiff has proved the same by its unshaken testimony.
Therefore, the property in the goods passed to the Defendant much
before the goods reached Bhopal and the Defendant failed to prove that
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 52 of 58
Digitally signed
by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.04.08
15:58:10 +0530
the sale was not complete in absence of approval by DW-1 after the
goods reached Bhopal and after he examined them.
90. As per the case of the Defendant, the Defendant supplied biscuits
and rusks to various dealers/traders in the materials supplied by the
Plaintiff because of Plaintiff’s not taking back the material with intent to
mitigate the losses. Therefore, the Defendant did an act adopting the
transaction. In view of the said statement of the Defendant in its
Preliminary Submissions, the Defendant itself contradicted its stand that
the Plaintiff was informed that the goods shall only be accepted once the
Defendant approves the quality of the same. Therefore, the Defendant,
doing an act of adopting the transaction takes the case of the Defendant
out of the ambit of Section 24 of Sale of Goods Act.
91. Therefore, the corollary is that the sale was complete at the latest
on the receiving of the supply from the Plaintiff by the Defendant and
the defence of the Defendant that it is not liable to pay the amount of the
materials supplied through the invoices for which the present suit has
been filed fails and is unsustainable. The act of rejection of the material
supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, deeming it to be correct, is
thus an act subsequent to the completion of Sale between the parties and
the Defendant has its own remedies to pursue under Sale of Goods Act
or any other law but the Defendant cannot escape its liability to pay the
amount claimed through these invoices since the Plaintiff has proved
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Digitally signed by
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 53 of 58 Date: 2025.04.08
15:58:19 +0530
these invoices. The Defendant has itself stated that in the alternative the
Plaintiff should pay damages to the Defendant.
92. In its written submissions, the Defendant has submitted that if the
case of the Plaintiff is that the materials were wrongly rejected by the
Defendant, the Plaintiff ought to have filed a case for damages for non-
acceptance as per section 56 of Sale of Goods Act.
93. Section 56 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, which deals with
damages for non-acceptance. It is in addition to a seller’s right to claim
the price of goods under Section 55, which addresses suits for price.
Section 55 allows a seller to sue the buyer for the price of goods when
the buyer wrongfully refuses to pay, even if the property in the goods
has passed to the buyer. In other words, if the buyer has agreed to buy
the goods and the seller has fulfilled its part of the contract by delivering
or being ready to deliver the goods, the seller can sue for the price.
Section 56 provides for remedy to claim damages for non-acceptance
and provides that if the buyer wrongfully neglects or refuses to accept
and pay for the goods, the seller can sue the buyer for damages for non-
acceptance. This means the seller can seek compensation for any loss or
damage suffered due to the buyer’s refusal to take delivery or pay for the
goods. Section 56 is an additional remedy available to the seller, in
addition to the right to claim the price under Section 55. Therefore, the
contention/submission of Defendant is not sustainable that the present
suit for recovery is not maintainable since remedies under Section 55
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 54 of 58
Digitally signed
by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.04.08
15:58:26 +0530
and Section 56 of Sale of Goods Act are not mutually exclusive; a seller
can pursue both, depending on the circumstances of the case.
94. It is noticed that the Defendant has left no stone unturned to
mislead this court by making submissions in its affidavit of evidence
which are beyond the pleadings and in its written submissions, the
Defendant has taken some grounds which were not part of either
pleadings or evidence. Further, the Defendant has taken contradictory
defences in its Written Statement.
95. Section 42 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, defines when a buyer
is deemed to have accepted goods, which occurs when they intimate
acceptance, perform an act inconsistent with the seller’s ownership,
or retain the goods after a reasonable time without rejecting them. In its
written statement, the Defendant and in its affidavit of evidence, DW1
has mentioned that to mitigate the loss, the Defendant supplied the
materials to his dealers and the same was rejected by them. The said
submission of the Defendant shows that the buyer i.e. Defendant
performed an act inconsistent with the seller’s ownership. The
Defendant has taken contradictory stands. Deeming that the goods
received by Defendant were defective (which the Defendant has failed to
prove miserably), in view of the above deposition of DW-1, the
Defendant loses the right to reject the material and at best could claim
damages for breach of warranty. The Defendant has, in fact, itself
pleaded that it be paid compensation in the alternative for loss suffered
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 55 of 58
Digitally signed by
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.04.08
15:58:32 +0530
by it but did not lead any evidence to prove that it suffered any loss. In
the conspectus of these observations, the Defendant had no right to reject
the materials nor could it therefore refuse payment of the materials
supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendant through its invoices.
96. Plaintiff has proved its invoices, and the invoices specifically
provide the terms and conditions that the goods once sold will not be
taken back and the responsibility of the Plaintiff ceases when the goods
are delivered to the party or the carrier. Therefore, the material supplied
by Plaintiff to Defendant would be governed by terms and conditions
mentioned in the invoices.
97. The Plaintiff has proved the fact of delivery of materials to the
Defendant alongwith invoices as well as its Ledger Account. The
testimony of PW-1 remained unimpeached and unshaken since PW-1
took a consistent stand that the materials supplied by the Plaintiff were
not defective during his cross-examination coupled with the fact that the
Defendant did not produce any evidence or material on record to show
that the materials provided by the Plaintiff were defective nor produced
any witness from office of Biscuit Basket like Quality in charge or any
of its dealers nor produced any defective materials or the packaged
goods allegedly rejected and returned by its Dealers in its evidence or
alongwith its written statement, proves the case of the Plaintiff by
preponderance of liability. Therefore, the Plaintiff has proved its case by
preponderance of probabilities. Therefore it is held that the Plaintiff is
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 56 of 58
Digitally signed
by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.04.08
15:58:38 +0530
entitled to relief of recovery of suit amount of Rs.7,73,437/- to be
paid by the Defendant. The Plaintiff is also held entitled to recovery
of notice charges of Rs.5,500/-. Therefore issue no.2 is decided in
favor of Plaintiff and against the Defendant.
Issue No.3 : Whether any interest is payable, if any, at what rate?
The onus to prove this issue was on the Plaintiff.
98. In view of issue No.1 decided in favour of the Plaintiff and against
the Defendant, it is held that Plaintiff is entitled to interest.
99. The Plaintiff has claimed the amount of Rs.7,73,437/- alongwith
pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum. It is held that
Plaintiff is entitled for pendente lite and future interest at the rate of
18% per annum on Principal amount i.e. Rs.7,73,437/- till its
realization. Issue no.3 is, therefore, decided in favour of Plaintiff and
against the Defendant.
RELIEF
100. In view of my findings on issue No.1 to 3, the present case is
decreed in favour of Plaintiff and against the Defendant for the sum of
Rs.7,73,437/- alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per
annum till its realization. Defendant is also directed to pay a sum of
Rs.5,500/- to the Plaintiff towards Notice Charges. Defendant is also
directed to pay to Plaintiff the cost of the suit which shall include
pleader’s fee and the other costs on the scale provided under section 35
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 57 of 58
Digitally signed
by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.04.08
15:58:45 +0530
of the Code of Civil Procedure as substituted by Commercial Courts Act.
If the payment is not made within thirty days, the cost shall also carry
simple interest @ 6% per annum.
101. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance. NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Announced in the open Digitally signed
by NEERA
Court on 08.04.2025 BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.04.08
(Dr. Neera Bharihoke) 15:58:54 +0530
District Judge (Commercial Court)-06
South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi
08.04.2025
Certified that this judgment contains 58 pages and each page bears
my signatures.
NEERA (Dr. Neera Bharihoke)
BHARIHOKE District Judge (Commercial Court)-06
South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi
Digitally signed 08.04.2025
by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.04.08
15:58:59 +0530
CS DJ 809/19 M/s S.S. Industries Vs. M/s Biscuit Basket Pvt. Ltd. Page 58 of 58
[ad_1]
Source link