Delhi District Court
M/S. Proline Beauty And Wellness Pvt. … vs M/S Sai Enterprises on 24 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA
DISTRICT JUDGE(COMMERCIAL)-07(CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
CS (Comm.) No. 478/2023
CNR No. DLCT010038682023
DLCT010038682023
M/s Sai Enterprises
Through its Partner
Shri Jitesh Mahajan
Office at F-70, Sector-9, Vijay Nagar,
Ghaziabad, UP-201009,
Also At :
A-26, Second Floor,
Gagan Enclave,
Ghaziabad, UP-201009
......Plaintiff/Respondent.
Vs
M/S Proline Beauty & Wellness Pvt. Ltd.,
B-25, Prahalad Market,
Deshbandhu Gupta Road,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005.
...... Defendant/Counter-Claimant.
AND
Counter Claim No. 28/2023
CNR No. DLCT010073242023
M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness,
B-25, Prahalad Market,
Digitally signed
Deshbandhu Gupta Road,
by MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
GUPTA
Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005.
KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2024.12.26
12:27:27
......Counter-Claimant/defendant
+0530
CS (Comm.) No. 478/2023 M/s Sai Enterprises Vs. M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 1 of 31
Counter Claim No.28/2023 M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd Vs. M/s Sai Enterprises
Vs.
M/s Sai Enterprises,
Through its Partner
Shri Jitesh Mahajan
Office at F-70, Sector-9, Vijay Nagar,
Ghaziabad, UP-201009,
Also At :
A-26, Second Floor,
Gagan Enclave,
Ghaziabad, UP-201009
......Respondent/Plaintiff.
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 21, 66,309/-.
And
COUNTER CLAIM FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 3,32,353/-
Date of institution of suit : 16.03.2023
Date of institution of counter claim : 25.05.2023
First Date before this court : 01.04.2024
Date of hearing of final argument : 21.12.2024
Date of Judgment : 24.12.2024
Appearance(s) : Mr. Dipesh Chaudhary, Adv. for plaintiff/Respondent.
Mr. Shrey Chetley, Ld. Counsels for the defendant/
counter claimant.
JUDGMENT
(A) PRELUDE:
1. By way of the present common judgment, I shall conscientiously
adjudicate upon plaintiff’s suit for Recovery of Rs.21,66,309/- alongwith
interest @ 18% per annum pendentlite and future from the date of filing
of suit till its realisation AND the defendant/counter claimant’s claim for
recovery of Rs.3,32,353/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the
date of filing of suit till the date of realisation. The parties have also
prayed for their respective costs of the suit/counter claim filed against
MUKESH Digitally signed
each other.
by MUKESH
KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA
Date: 2024.12.26
GUPTA 12:27:41 +0530
CS (Comm.) No. 478/2023 M/s Sai Enterprises Vs. M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 2 of 31
Counter Claim No.28/2023 M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd Vs. M/s Sai Enterprises
SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF
(B) CASE OF PLAINTIFF
2. Eschewing prolix reference to the pleadings crystallizing the same
the plaintiff has averred in the plaint that:-
2.1) Plaintiff is a partnership firm engaged in the business of
selling cosmetic products since 2019. The present suit has been filed by
Shri Jitesh Mahajan, one of the partner of the plaintiff’s firm who has
also been duly authorized by the plaintiff vide authorisation dated
04.09.2022.
2.2) The defendant is a company is duly incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956 stated to be a wholesale supplier of cosmetic
products which approached the plaintiff in the year 2019 through its
directors and proposed to supply all the cosmetic products to plaintiff.
Defendant assured the plaintiff that it will supply good quality products
at competitive prices and will take back the unsold products. Defendant
also assured the plaintiff that since there is huge demand of their
products in the market, the same would be sold immediately.
2.3) In 2019, on the assurance of the defendant, plaintiff started
doing business with defendant and defendant started supplying the
required cosmetic products to the plaintiff. After sometime, plaintiff
realized that the cosmetic products supplied by defendant has no demand
inn the market and is very expensive thereby resulting into the products
Digitally
signed by
MUKESH
accumulating with the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff, time and
MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2024.12.26
12:27:49
again informed the facts that the product is not being sold and the
+0530CS (Comm.) No. 478/2023 M/s Sai Enterprises Vs. M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 3 of 31
Counter Claim No.28/2023 M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd Vs. M/s Sai Enterprises
products have been accumulated, requesting the defendant for the return
of products and refund of money. Finally, the defendant agreed to take
back the products and refund the money to the plaintiff and accordingly,
plaintiff sent the entire unsold products amounting to Rs.13,99,568/- and
the same has been acknowledged with receipt with the assurance to
refund the money to the plaintiff.
2.4) The plaintiff made several request to the defendant orally
but the defendant did not make the payment and also continued to delay
the same on one pretext or the other. Ultimately, the plaintiff was
constrained to send an e-mail dated 20.07.2022 for payment of the
amount of Rs.13,99,568/-, however, defendant did not make the payment
and continued evading the same on one pretext or the other.
2.5) Finally, the plaintiff was compelled to issue a legal notice
dated 28.10.2022 to the defendant calling upon the defendant company
to pay the amount with interest @ 18% per annum. As per the
averments made, the defendant company failed to pay the outstanding
amount despite service of the same .
2.6) The plaintiff has claimed cause of action firstly arose on
the date when the defendant approached the plaintiff in the year 2019 for
supply of cosmetic products, when the defendant started business with
the plaintiff with regard to the supply of required cosmetic products, and
on 11.11.2019, when the plaintiff sent back the entire products amounting
Digitally signed
to Rs.13,99,568/-to the defendant under receipt of acknowledgment and
by MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR
GUPTA
GUPTA
Date:
2024.12.26
finally on issuance of legal notice dated 28.10.2022 and the cause of
12:27:58
+0530CS (Comm.) No. 478/2023 M/s Sai Enterprises Vs. M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 4 of 31
Counter Claim No.28/2023 M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd Vs. M/s Sai Enterprises
action is still continuing and subsisting. Hence the present suit for
recovery of Rs.21,66,309/- (including Rs.13,99,568/- as outstanding
amount and Rs.7,66,741/- as pre-suit interest) with interest and costs.
(C) CASE OF DEFENDANT:-
3. On receipt of summons for settlement of issues, the defendant not
only contested the suit by filing a detailed Written Statement but also
filed a Counter claim for a sum of Rs.3,32,353/- thereby taking various
preliminary objections claiming that :-
3.1) The suit of the plaintiff is liable to be rejected under Order
VII Rule 11 of the CPC as the same has been filed without any cause of
action against the defendant company. The defendant has denied the
liability towards the plaintiff and claimed that as per the Statement of
Account maintained by the defendant in the regular and normal course of
business an amount of Rs.3,32,353/- alongwith 18% interest per annum is
due and payable by the plaintiff to the defendant. As per defendant’s case,
the plaintiff has assured the defendant that it shall pay the amount of
Rs.3,32,353/- to the defendant but the same has not been paid till date. It
has been contended that it was specifically informed to the plaintiff
before placing purchase order that the goods once sold shall not be
returned back and the same is duly mentioned in the terms and condition
of the invoice and the same was duly agreed and acknowledged by the
plaintiff.
Digitally
3.2) It has also been contended that the plaintiff many times
signed by
MUKESH
MUKESH
KUMAR
KUMAR
GUPTA requested the defendant to replace the goods with other goods whose
Date:
GUPTA 2024.12.26
12:28:03
+0530 CS (Comm.) No. 478/2023 M/s Sai Enterprises Vs. M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 5 of 31
Counter Claim No.28/2023 M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd Vs. M/s Sai Enterprises
demand increase in the market and in order to maintain good business
relation with the plaintiff, the defendant many times exchanged the goods
by the other goods as and when demanded/requested by the plaintiff. It
was categorically informed to the plaintiff that only goods will be
replaced with other goods hence, no amount will be refunded once goods
has been sold.
3.3) It has further been contended that the defendant a number
of times request the plaintiff to lift the stock which were sent by the
plaintiff which is to be exchanged with other goods but till date plaintiff
failed to pick the exchange or same goods as per stocks record the goods
which are lying in the stock of the defendant and for the same, the
plaintiff is also liable to pay the rent as a store charges.
3.4) It has further been averred that plaintiff is an unregistered
partnership and unregistered partnership cannot file any suit. The suit of
the plaintiff is not maintainable in the eye of law as the same is barred by
limitation as the cause of action arose on 11.11.2019 and the suit has
been filed on 16.03.2023 which has been filed after more than 3 years.
3.5) On merits, all the allegations made in the plaint are denied
as incorrect and it has been contended by the defendant that defendant is
a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 2013
and Shri Kamal Kochhar is an Authorized Representative of the
defendant company who is duly authorised to sign or verify or file the
Digitally
present plaint or to sign the Vakalatnama on behalf of the defendant
signed by
MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR GUPTA company. It has also been denied that as time progressed, plaintiff
GUPTA Date:
2024.12.26
12:28:10
+0530 CS (Comm.) No. 478/2023 M/s Sai Enterprises Vs. M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 6 of 31
Counter Claim No.28/2023 M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd Vs. M/s Sai Enterprises
realized that the cosmetic products supplied by defendant were not being
easily sold in the open market as there was no demand for them and as
per the customers, they were expensive also.
3.6) It has further been denied that the Covid pandemic hit the
nation and defendant on the pretext of Covid situation continued to
assure plaintiff that they shall be making the payment as soon as the
Covid situation ends. It has also been denied that the plaintiff is entitled
to recover any amount from the defendant as no amount is due against
the defendant and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. A detailed replication to the Written Statement was also preferred
by the plaintiff reiterating the contents of the plaint and vehemently
denying the contents of the Written Statement. It has further been
reiterated that the defendant has filed a false and fabricated ledger
account just to create a defence and filed a counter claim and that the
defendant has intentionally and deliberately in its ledger account not
shown the entries reflecting return of the goods made by the plaintiff
whereas in the Written Statement at para No. 9 & 10 of the present suit,
the defendant has categorically admitted that the goods returned by the
plaintiff are with the defendant as such no claim for the defendant is
made out. From the ledger Account filed by the plaintiff and from the
documents filed by the defendant, it is clear that the goods were returned
to the defendant, which are still in its possession.
Digitally signed
MUKESH by MUKESH
KUMAR GUPTA
KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2024.12.26
12:28:17 +0530CS (Comm.) No. 478/2023 M/s Sai Enterprises Vs. M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 7 of 31
Counter Claim No.28/2023 M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd Vs. M/s Sai Enterprises
COUNTER CLAIM OF THE DEFENDANT
(D) CLAIM OF THE COUNTER CLAIMANT:
5. In the counter claim, the counter-claimant/defendant has averred
that :
5.1) Counter claimant/Defendant is a company incorporated and
registered under the Companies Act, 2013 having its office at B-25,
Prahlad Market, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi and is
engaged in the business of manufacturing of cosmetics & toiletries
(hereinafter referred to as the “goods”). Shri Kamal Kochhar is the
Authorized Representative of the defendant company who is duly
athorised to sign, file, verify the present counter claim vide Board
Resolution dated 20.04.2023 in his favour.
5.2) While reiterating the contents of its Written Statement as filed in
plaintiff’s suit, it has been averred that plaintiff is a partnership firm
incorporated and registered under the Partnership Act, 1932 and the
plaintiff has approached the counter-claiment for supplying of cosmetics
goods and accordingly the counter claimant in the course of its regular
business has been supplying the goods to the plaintiff as per orders and
satisfaction of the plaintiff from time to time. Accordingly the counter
claimant raise invoices bearing No. 01/18 on 13.06.2019 for the amount
of Rs.15,01,247/-, invoice No. 01/29 on 13.08.2019 for the amount of
Rs.2,45,235/- and invoice No. 1/44 on 09.10.2019 for the amount of
Rs.85,871/- for the goods supplied by it. The defendant
company/counter claimant has been maintaining a running Statement of
Digitally
signed by
MUKESH
Account of the goods supplied and as per the Statement of Account
MUKESH KUMARmaintained by the defendant/counter claimant in the regular and ordinary
KUMAR GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2024.12.26
12:28:23
+0530
CS (Comm.) No. 478/2023 M/s Sai Enterprises Vs. M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 8 of 31
Counter Claim No.28/2023 M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd Vs. M/s Sai Enterprises
course of business an amount of Rs.3,32,353/- alongwith interest @ 18%
per annum is due and payable by the plaintiff to the defendant/counter
claimant. The plaintiff has assured the defendant that the aforesaid
amount shall be paid soon but the same is still pending.
5.3) It has further been averred that it was specifically informed
to the respondent-plaintiff before purchase order that the goods once sold
shall not be return back and the same has been duly mentioned in the
terms and condition of the invoice and the terms and conditions of the
invoice were duly agreed to and acknowledged by the plaintiff.
5.4) It has further been averred that the respondent-plaintiff
returned some of the goods by informing that they will take other goods
in place of these returned goods. The defendant/counter claimant has
also clearly informed the plaintiff that as per company policy they will
not refund the money but they can exchange the returned goods with
other goods and the plaintiff also agreed thereto.
5.5) It has finally been averred that the counter claimant
requested the plaintiff a number of times to lift the stock which were sent
by the plaintiff to exchange with other goods but till date plaintiff failed
to pick the exchange goods or the same as per stocks record, the goods
are lying in the stock of the defendant and as such the plaintiff is also
liable to pay the rent as a store charges.
MUKESH Digitally
by MUKESH
signed
KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA
Date: 2024.12.26
GUPTA 12:28:35 +0530
CS (Comm.) No. 478/2023 M/s Sai Enterprises Vs. M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 9 of 31
Counter Claim No.28/2023 M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd Vs. M/s Sai Enterprises
(E) REPLY OF RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:
6. The Respondent/plaintiff has preferred a detailed reply/Written
Statement to the counter claim thereby calling the counter claim as false,
vexatious, devoid of any merits and liable to be dismissed at the
threshold.
6.1) It has also been stated that the claimant has intentionally and
deliberately in its ledger account not shown the entries reflecting return
of the goods by the Respondent/plaintiff whereas in the Written
Statement at para 9 & 10 to the suit of the respondent/plaintiff, the
claimant has categorically admitted that the goods returned by the
respondent/plaintiff is with the claimant as such no claim of the counter-
claimant is made out.
6.2) Respondent-plaintiff has vehemently denied the allegations
of not making the payment against the returned goods and is a
concocted story to create a sham defence and to avoid liability against
supplied goods by the counter-claimant/defendant.
6.3) The respondent-plaintiff has further averred that the
claimant has filed a false and fabricated ledger account just to file the
present false counter claim and the the claimant has intentionally and
deliberately in its ledger account not shown the entires showing return of
the goods by the respondent/plaintiff whereas, in the written statement,
the defendant has admitted that the returned goods are with them.
6.4) Finally, it has been averred that from the ledger account
Digitally signed
by MUKESH
MUKESH
filed by the respondent/plaintiff and from the documents filed by the
KUMAR GUPTA
KUMAR Date:
2024.12.26
GUPTA 12:28:43
+0530CS (Comm.) No. 478/2023 M/s Sai Enterprises Vs. M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 10 of 31
Counter Claim No.28/2023 M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd Vs. M/s Sai Enterprises
claimant, it is clear that the goods were returned to the claimant which
are still in its possession. The respondent-plaintiff has prayed for
dismissal of the counter claim with costs.
(F) CRYSTALISING THE DISPUTE :-
7. On pleadings of the parties and documents placed on record and
after perusing the affidavit of admission denial with the defendant
admitting receipt of the invoices/bills, but denying details & amount
thereof, and after hearing the parties and perusing the records, the
following issues were framed in the main suit as well as counter-claim
for adjudication vide order dated 11.09.2024:
ISSUES:
(in Suit No. CS (Comm.) 478/2023)
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of
Rs.21,66,309/- against the defendant OPP.
(2) Whether plaintiff is entitled to any interest on
such amount and if so, at what rate and for
period ? OPP.
(in Counter Claim No. 28/2023)
(3) Whether the counter-claim is liable to be dismissed
on account of false and fabricated ledger account
filed by the counter claimant ?OPP (R)(4) Whether the Counter -claimant is entitled to a
recovery of Rs. 3,32,353/- against the respondent-
plaintiff ? OPD (CC)
(5) Whether the Counter-claimant is entitled to any
interest on such amount, if so, for what rate and for
what period ? OPD (CC)
(6) Relief.
Digitally signed
MUKESH by MUKESH
KUMAR GUPTA
KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2024.12.26
12:28:51 +0530CS (Comm.) No. 478/2023 M/s Sai Enterprises Vs. M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 11 of 31
Counter Claim No.28/2023 M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd Vs. M/s Sai Enterprises
8. It is further pertinent to mention here that since both the matters
are inter-connected, the evidence was ordered to be led in common with
the suit being the leading case.
(G) EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT.
9. Plaintiff (Respondent in the counter claim), in support of its case,
got examined one of its partner Shri Jitesh Mahajan, as PW1 who
tendered his evidence by way of affidavit in the suit as Ex.PW1/A.
10. PW1 reiterated the contents of the plaint on oath and the contents
of the reply to the counter-claim in his affidavits. He got exhibited the
Original Authority Letter dated 04.09.2022 in his favour as Ex.PW1/1,
Copy of Registered Partnership deed of the plaintiff firm as Ex.PW1/2
(OSR), Copy of company Master Data of defendant company as
Ex.PW1/3, Ledger Account from 01.04.2019 to 28.02.2020 as Ex.PW1/4
(colly) (OSR), Original Acknowledged Debit Notes dated 22.07.2019,
16.08.2019, 11.11.2019 & E-way Bills dated 11.11.2019 as Ex.PW1/5
(colly), E-mail dated 20.07.2022 as Ex.PW1/6, Office Copy of Legal
Notice dated 28.10.2022, the Postal Receipt, Tracking Reports &
Certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, as Ex.PW1/7 (colly), He
has further deposed that the suit is correct and the defendant is liable to
pay the outstanding amount alongwith interest and costs and the counter-
claim filed by the counter claimant is liable to be dismissed with
exemplary costs.
Digitally signed
11. During a detailed cross-examination, Ld. Counsel for
by MUKESH
MUKESH
defendant/counter-claimant Shri Shrey Chathly has tried to puncture the
KUMAR
GUPTA
KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2024.12.26
12:28:58
+0530
CS (Comm.) No. 478/2023 M/s Sai Enterprises Vs. M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 12 of 31
Counter Claim No.28/2023 M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd Vs. M/s Sai Enterprises
testimony of PW1 on the point of entires of ledger account and the tax
invoices and other aspects. PW1 during cross-examination has deposed
that he being the partner of the plaintiff partnership firm since 2019 has
dealt with the defendant. He has admitted the business relationship with
the defendant. He has further deposed that there is no written agreement
governing the business relationship between the plaintiff and the
defendant. When confronted with the document Ex.PW1/4 i.e. the
ledger account regarding entries dated 13.06.2019 bearing voucher
No.1/18 for a sum of Rs.15,01,247/-, entry dated 13.08.2019 bearing
voucher No.1/29 for a sum of Rs.2,45,235/- and entry dated 09.10.2019
bearing voucher No.1/44 for a sum of Rs.85,871/- the witness has replied
the same in affirmative. The witness has again been confronted with the
documents i.e. Tax invoice No.1/18 for a sum of Rs.15,01,247/-, Tax
Invoice No.1/29 for a sum of Rs.2,45,235/- and Tax Invoice No.1/44 for
a sum of Rs.85,871/- and asked whether these entries match with the
ledger account to which the witness has answered in affirmative again.
He has further deposed that he has read the terms and conditions of the
tax invoices and has admitted that goods once sold were not to be taken
back has been mentioned in the tax invoice. However, he has voluntarily
deposed that they have returned the stock to the defendant thrice and the
defendant has also received the same. He has admitted that he has not
made any payment to the defendant after 11.11.2019 and the last payment
was made probably in the month of May-June, 2019 and lastly, he has
claimed interest @ 18 per cent per annum as mentioned in the terms and
conditions of the tax invoice issued by the defendant.
Digitally signed
by MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
GUPTA
12. No other witness was examined by the plaintiff-respondent and the
KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2024.12.26
12:29:05
+0530 CS (Comm.) No. 478/2023 M/s Sai Enterprises Vs. M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 13 of 31
Counter Claim No.28/2023 M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd Vs. M/s Sai Enterprises
evidence of the plaintiff-respondent was closed vide statement dated
05.11.2024.
(H) DEFENDANT’S/COUNTER-CLAIMANT’S EVIDENCE :-
13. The defendant in its defence/counter claim examined one Shri
Kamal Kochhar its duly authorized representative as DW1 who has filed
his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/A. He reiterated the contents
of the Written Statement and the counter claim on oath and exhibited the
copy of Board of Resolution dated 20.04.2023 in his favour as
Ex.DW1/A, Ledger Account of the defendant company for the period
01.04.2019 till 31.03.2020 as Ex.DW1/2, List of goods lying with the
defendant company belonging to the plaintiff as Ex.DW1/3, Invoices
bearing No.1/18 for a sum of Rs.15,01,247/-, Tax Invoice No.1/29 for a
sum of Rs.2,45,235/- and Tax Invoice No.1/44 for a sum of Rs.85,871/-
as Ex.DW1/4 and E-way bills as Ex.DW1/5 (colly). He has also deposed
in his evidence that suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed as the
defendant has no liability towards the plaintiff rather defendant is entitled
to recover an amount of Rs.3,32,353/- from the plaintiff on account of
excessive payment made in anticipation of the goods. He has deposed
that the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs
and the counter claim is liable to be decreed.
14. The witness was subjected to a detailed cross-examination by Ld.
Counsel Sh. Dipesh Chaudhary for the plaintiff, during which DW1 has
admitted that the business transactions took place between the plaintiff
and the defendant company and he was involved in billing material
MUKESH Digitally
by MUKESH
signed
dispatch and material received. He has also admitted that the plaintiff
KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA
Date: 2024.12.26
GUPTA 12:29:12 +0530
CS (Comm.) No. 478/2023 M/s Sai Enterprises Vs. M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 14 of 31
Counter Claim No.28/2023 M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd Vs. M/s Sai Enterprises
has returned some material to the defendant company. He has voluntarily
deposed that whatever material was returned, was returned to be
exchanged. The witness was confronted with the document Ex.DW1/2
and asked whether the goods returned back by the plaintiff, have not been
shown in the ledger Ex.DW1/2 to which the witness has replied in
affirmative. He has voluntarily deposed that the returned goods have
not being reflected in the ledger Ex.DW1/2 as the same were to be
exchanged. He has further deposed that he has not placed on record any
document to show that the returned goods had to be exchanged. He has
denied the suggestion that there is no document to show the return of
goods which received to be exchanged as there was no such policy of the
defendant company. He has voluntarily deposed that the terms and
conditions have been mentioned in the invoice itself which clearly stated
that the goods will never be returned and in case, the goods get returned,
the same shall only be exchanged and no refund was to be made. He has
further deposed that the terms and conditions as mentioned in the
invoice, there was no condition for exchange of goods voluntarily adding
deposed that it was a mutual understanding in respect of return of
cosmetic goods. He has further deposed that at present, he could not
tell about the exact shelf life of the returned product. He has denied the
suggestion that the returned goods have been sold by the defendant in the
market. Moreover, the witness denied the suggestion that the counter
claim filed by the defendant is false and no amount is due from the
plaintiff company. He has further denied the suggestion that he has not
filed any document to show that the outstanding amount of Rs.3,32,353/-
Digitally signed
by MUKESH
has been claimed from the plaintiff but voluntarily stated that the same is
MUKESH KUMAR
shown in the ledger account Ex.DW1/2. He has further denied the
GUPTA
KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2024.12.26
12:29:20
+0530CS (Comm.) No. 478/2023 M/s Sai Enterprises Vs. M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 15 of 31
Counter Claim No.28/2023 M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd Vs. M/s Sai Enterprises
suggestion that the ledger account Ex.DW1/2 is a false document and
created by the defendant. He has further denied the suggestion that
there was any mutual understanding between the plaintiff and the
defendant for exchange of the returned goods.
15. No other witness was examined by the defendant and the defendant
evidence was closed vide statement dated 07.11.2024.
(I) ANALYSIS & DETERMINATION: –
16. I have heard the vehement arguments addressed by the Ld.
Counsels for the parties, perused the entire record including the
pleadings, the oral as well as documentary evidence and have given a
thoughtful consideration to the same. For the sake of convenience, the
status of the parties is mentioned as plaintiff and defendant to include
respondent and counter-claimant in counter claim. My issue-wise
determination is as under:-
Issue No. 1 in the main suit and Issue Nos. 3 & 4 in the counter-
claim:
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs. 21,66,309/- against the
defendant? OPP.
(in Counter Claim No. 28/2023)
(3) Whether the counter-claim is liable to be dismissed on account of false and
fabricated ledger account filed by the counter claimant? OPP (R)
(4) Whether the Counter -claimant is entitled to a recovery of Rs. 3,32,353/- against the
respondent-plaintiff? OPD (CC)
17. The onus of proving issue no. 1, in the main suit and issue no. 3 in
Digitally signed
the counter claim are on the plaintiff-Respondent while that of issue no. 4
by MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR
GUPTA
GUPTA
Date:
2024.12.26
in the counter claim is on the counter-claimant/defendant. These issues
12:29:26
+0530CS (Comm.) No. 478/2023 M/s Sai Enterprises Vs. M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 16 of 31
Counter Claim No.28/2023 M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd Vs. M/s Sai Enterprises
are taken together as they are inextricably interconnected and evidence
led by the parties is also common. These issues also pivotal to entire
controversy between the parties in as much as the case of the plaintiff is
based on the supply of the cosmetics goods by the defendant and some
of the material being returned by the plaintiff to the defendant which is
also in possession of the defendant. As per the contentions laid by the
plaintiff in his plaint is that in the year 2019, the defendant approached
the plaintiff and made a proposal that they will supply good quality of
cosmetic products at competitive prices and after which the business was
commenced. However, after passing of months, the plaintiff realized that
the goods supplied by the defendant were not being sold easily and also
there was minimum sale of the said goods in the market. The said reason
was repeatedly informed to the defendant and after repeated insistence of
the plaintiff, the defendant agreed to take back the goods amounting to
Rs. 13,99,568/- under receipt and refund the money of the said goods to
the plaintiff. Unfortunately, the whole nation got hit with COVID – 19
pandemic, due to which the plaintiff repeatedly made request before the
defendant in respect of release of the payment, but the defendant on one
pretext to other gave assurance that it shall release the payment soon.
Due to non-responsive attitude of Defendant, the plaintiff was
constrained to send an e-mail Ex. PW1/6 on dated 20.07.2022 in respect
to release the payment of Rs.13,99,568/-, however, the defendant neither
replied to the said email nor released the payment compelling the
plaintiff to send a legal notice dated 28.10.2022 Ex.PW1/7 but to noDigitally
avail.
signed by
MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
18. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has relied upon the judgment M/s
2024.12.26
12:29:33
+0530
CS (Comm.) No. 478/2023 M/s Sai Enterprises Vs. M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 17 of 31
Counter Claim No.28/2023 M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd Vs. M/s Sai Enterprises
Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and others 1979 SCC (2) 409 on the point of Doctrine of
Promissory Estoppel, and The Officer in Charge Vs. M.N. Manohar,
(decided on 29.06.2013), Appeal No. 924/2012 Kerala State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Vazhuthacaud,
Thiruvananthapuram on the point of legality of terms of invoices
19. On the other hand, the case of the defendant/counter claimant is
that only a supply of goods has been made to the plaintiff in the regular
and ordinary course of business transactions and as per the statement of
account in the books of the defendant, the plaintiff has to pay an
outstanding amount of Rs.3,23,353/- alongwith 18% per annum which
the defendant has claimed as a counter-claim amount. Ld. Counsel for
defendant /counter-claimant has argued that he has sold the goods worth
of Rs.18,32,353/- to the plaintiff out of which the plaintiff has made
payment of Rs.15,00,000/- and the balance amount of Rs.3,32,353/- is
due against the plaintiff which is a counter claim amount. He has further
argued that there is no agreement between the parties to the effect that
defendant shall pay back amount in monetary terms for the returned
goods. He has further argued that for the sake of healthy business
relations, he used to exchange the goods as and when requested by the
plaintiff but the same doesn’t confer any right on the plaintiff to ask for
money of returned products or agreement to this effect. He has relied
upon the invoice bill Ex. DW1/4 (colly) wherein the terms and conditions
have been mentioned in the foot note and according to the terms and
conditions, the plaintiff is required to comply the same and the defendant
Digitally signedMUKESH
by MUKESH
KUMAR
GUPTA
cannot refund the price of the returned/unsold goods. He has relied
KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2024.12.26
12:29:40
+0530 CS (Comm.) No. 478/2023 M/s Sai Enterprises Vs. M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 18 of 31
Counter Claim No.28/2023 M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd Vs. M/s Sai Enterprises
upon the judgment of Hon’ble High Court in Lohmann Rasher Gmbh
Vs. Medisphere Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 117 (2004) DLT 95, M/s Aar Ess
and Co. and Anr. Vs. M/s Rathi Udyog Ltd. 2012 SCC OnLine Del
2220 (2012) 195 DLT 31 on the point of meaning of Inspections and
Acceptance u/s 41 and 42 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1913 and on the
judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court only on the aspect of cause of
action as reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Del 998, Satyapal Vs. Slick
Auto Accessories Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. It has been emphasized by Ld.
Counsel for plaintiff that parties are bound by the terms and conditions
as mentioned in the invoices in the absence of any express agreement.
20. Before adverting to these issues, the court shall first take up the
issue of limitation which is a legal issue, which the court is required to
determine for the purpose of deciding the entitlement of plaintiff to the
relief claimed. As per Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, any suit,
application or appeal has to be filed within the period of limitation as
prescribed under the schedule annexed to the Limitation Act and subject
to provisions contained in Section 4 to 24. This has to be done
irrespective of the fact whether limitation has been set up as a defence or
not. It is a settled proposition of law that law of limitation is a law of
repose, peace and justice which bars the remedy after the lapse of
particular period by a public policy and expediency. Reliance is placed
on AIR 1991 Kerala 83 Craft Centre V. Koncherry Coir Factories. As
per Article 1 of the Schedule annexed to the Limitation Act, 1963 the
period of Limitation is 3 years from the close of the year in which the last
item is admitted or proved and entered in such account. Perusal of the
Digitally signed
MUKESH
record shows that both suit as well as the counter-claim are ostensibly
by MUKESH
KUMAR GUPTA
KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2024.12.26
12:29:48 +0530
CS (Comm.) No. 478/2023 M/s Sai Enterprises Vs. M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 19 of 31
Counter Claim No.28/2023 M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd Vs. M/s Sai Enterprises
time barred, however, the present suit filed by the plaintiff against the
defendant is in respect of returned of goods which was purchased by the
plaintiff from the defendant. The plaintiff has pleaded in his plaint that
since the demand of the purchased product was very less, the plaintiff
returned the said goods of Rs.13,99,568/- to the defendant on 11.11.2019
under receipt and the defendant after acknowledging the same, the receipt
of the said goods, assured that the payment would be released to the
plaintiff shortly despite repeated request and issuance of legal notice, the
defendant did not make the payment of the returned goods. On the
contrary, the defendant has argued that admittedly the goods were
returned on 11.11.2019 and as such the cause of action for filing the
present suit arose on the said date and therefore, the suit having been
filed on 16.03.2023 is barred by limitation. The plaintiff while addressing
arguments in rebuttal has argued that the plaintiff applied the pre-
institution mediation on 04.11.2022 which resulted in “Non-Starter” on
09.01.2023 and the report was made available on 16.02.2023 and as such
the suit filed on 15.03.2023 through e-filing is within the limitation. The
aforesaid aspect of limitation has already been dealt by the Ld.
Predecessor of this court while disposing of the application u/o VII Rule
11 (a) and (d) read with section 151 CPC vide order dated 28.11.2023
whereby which the aforesaid application was dismissed. On perusal of
the entire record, it is found that the 3 years period of limitation was uptil
10.11.2022. It is relevant to mention here that on account of Covid-19
pandemic situation the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Suo Motu
Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 in Re: cognizance for extension ofMUKESH by
Digitally signed
MUKESH
limitation decided on 10.01.2022 has held that the period from
KUMAR GUPTA
KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2024.12.26
12:29:55 +0530
15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall be excluded for the purpose of
CS (Comm.) No. 478/2023 M/s Sai Enterprises Vs. M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 20 of 31
Counter Claim No.28/2023 M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd Vs. M/s Sai Enterprises
limitation. The relevant directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India passed in the aforesaid case are hereby reproduced as follows:-
“5(I) The order dated 23.03.2020 is
restored and in continuation of the
subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021,
27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed
that the period from 15.03.2020 till
28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the
purposes of limitation as may be
prescribed under any general or special
laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-
judicial proceedings.
(II) Consequently, the balance period of
limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if
any, shall become available with effect
from 01.03.2022.”
21. In its recent judgment, Babasaheb Raosaheb Kobarne &
Anr. Vs. Pyrotek India Private Limited & Ors. in SLP No.
2522/2022 vide pronouncement dated 09.05.2022 the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India has held that:
‘…..the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022
shall have to be excluded for the purposes of
limitation…… the said order shall also be
applicable with respect to the limitation period
prescribed under the Commercial Courts Act,
2015”
22. Hence, applying the ratio of the aforementioned judgment, the
present suit having been filed on 15.03.2023 (e-mode) and on
16.03.2023 through (physical mode) is well within the period of
limitation.
Digitally
signed by
MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2024.12.26
23. The crux of the entire controversy between the parties is that as per
12:30:06
+0530
CS (Comm.) No. 478/2023 M/s Sai Enterprises Vs. M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 21 of 31
Counter Claim No.28/2023 M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd Vs. M/s Sai Enterprises
the defendant, the plaintiff has agreed to the terms and conditions as
mentioned in the invoices, “Goods once sold will not be taken back”
and he cannot go contrary to the same.
24. Before adverting thereto and examining the facts, the Defendant
has duly admitted the fact that there were business relations with the
plaintiff and to maintain healthy business relations with the plaintiff, the
defendant has many times accepted the returned goods for exchange as
demanded/ requested by the plaintiff and also admitted that as per the
company policy, it was specifically informed to the plaintiff that once
goods sold, only the same will be replaced with other goods and no
amount will be refunded. The defendant has also admitted that the list of
goods Ex.DW1/3 which were sent by the plaintiff for exchange with
other goods are still with him but he has not paid the amount of returned
goods and the same are still lying in his stores.
25. On the contrary, the plaintiff has put forth that the defendant has
admitted the fact that the goods being sent by the plaintiff for exchange
are still under the custody of the defendant and for the same neither the
defendant has exchanged the goods nor made the payments. During
cross-examination as DW1 Shri Kamal Kochhar, has admitted that
returned goods are lying in the store of defendant company thereby
admitting that the defendant has taken back the sold goods from the
plaintiff.
Digitally
signed by
MUKESH
26. Now adverting to the fact that the ledger account of the defendant
MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2024.12.26
12:30:19
Ex.DW1/2 is false and frivolous. In this regard, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff
+0530CS (Comm.) No. 478/2023 M/s Sai Enterprises Vs. M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 22 of 31
Counter Claim No.28/2023 M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd Vs. M/s Sai Enterprises
has argued that when the defendant has admitted in his evidence that the
returned goods are lying with him, then it has to be shown in the ledger
account but the same has not been shown whereas in business parlance
the ledger account is a book of final entry or principal books of accounts
where all the transaction even debited or credited are to be reflected.
Reliance placed on the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Gujrat in
case titled Jay Ambe Industries, Proprietor Shri Dinesh Kumar
Bajrang Lal Somani, Vs. Garnet Specialty Paper Ltd. FA No.5228 of
2019 (DoD 07.01.2022) wherein it has been held that Ledger in itself
does not have evidentiary value under section 34 of Indian Evidence Act,
unless corroborated by proper entries maintained in regular course of
business. As per provisions of Indian Evidence Act, more particularly,
section 34 of the Act, the entries in the books of Accounts regularly kept
in the course of business are relevant evidence but these accounts books
are required to be produced and proved in original as they contain the
requisite sanctity which can never be attached to private extract of
alleged accounts where the original accounts books are not produced
before the court. Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in
CBI Vs. V.S. Shukla, (1998) 3 SCC 310, he has pleaded that the
rationale behind admissibility of these books of accounts in evidence is a
regularity of its maintenance, the difficulty of falsification and fair
certainty of ultimate deduction that give them sufficient degree of trust
worthiness which can never be attached to any extracts of such books of
accounts.
MUKESH by
Digitally signed
MUKESH
KUMAR GUPTA
27. Per contra, the defendant has itself has admitted that it has not
KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2024.12.26
12:30:39 +0530 shown the returned goods in its ledger. Further more, referring to its
CS (Comm.) No. 478/2023 M/s Sai Enterprises Vs. M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 23 of 31
Counter Claim No.28/2023 M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd Vs. M/s Sai Enterprises
counter-claim, the defendant has failed to place any document on record
to show that defendant ever demanded the alleged outstanding amount
from the plaintiff or even sent any communication to this effect. Further,
the defendant has neither sent any e-mail nor issued any legal notice to
the plaintiff for demanding the counter-claim amount. Thus, when the
facts & evidence are weighted on the yardstick of preponderance of
probabilities, the claim of counter claimant is more in the nature of a
mere counter-blast to the plaintiff’s suit, rather than being proved by any
cogent evidence. The judgments M/s Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills
Co. Pvt. Ltd. and The Officer in Charge (supra) relied upon by the
plaintiff is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present
case.
28. Now in so far as the compliance of Terms and conditions of the
invoices Ex.DW1/4 (colly), wherein it has been specifically mentioned
that “Goods once sold will not be taken back” but if the same is carefully
examined the said condition does not infer the word
exchange/return/refund. The defendant company has admitted the fact
in his Written Statement that to maintain the business relation with the
plaintiff, the defendant many time exchanged the goods by the other
goods as demanded/requested by the plaintiff. This statement has also
been categorically reiterated in the evidence of both the parties.
29. Though the defendant has tried to keep a firm stand that to
maintain healthy business relationship goods returned were exchanged
with other goods as per request of the plaintiff but the defendant has
failed to bring on record any evidence to show that there has been
Digitally signed
by MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
GUPTA
KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2024.12.26
12:30:45
+0530
CS (Comm.) No. 478/2023 M/s Sai Enterprises Vs. M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 24 of 31
Counter Claim No.28/2023 M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd Vs. M/s Sai Enterprises
exchanged of returned goods. During the course of the arguments, Ld.
Counsel for defendant has tried to show that there was a separate Goods
Replacement Account of the defendant but the same was neither quoted
nor proved by way of any evidence during the course of the trial. This
clearly being shown that the defendant has accepted the returned goods
from the plaintiff in contravention of pleaded terms and conditions of the
invoice Ex.DW1/4 where it has been mentioned that goods once sold will
not be taken back. The Debit Note Ex.PW1/5 and the Statement of
Returned Account Ex.DW1/3 showing the acceptance of 1569 items sent
by the plaintiff for return as accepted by the defendant. Interestingly, this
document has also been admitted by the defendant as Ex.DW1/3 during
the course of admission and denial of documents which clearly shows
that not only the returned products were accepted by the plaintiff but has
been kept in godown without any action. There is nothing on record to
show that returned goods were only meant to be exchanged by way of
any interfere of terms and conditions mentioned in Ex.DW1/4 and
heavily relied upon by the defendant during the course of its defence.
Interestingly, the dates are also worth mentioned in as much as the goods
were returned by the plaintiff and accepted by the defendant on
11.11.2019 and despite the lapse of 4 years, there has been no single
communication from the defendant that these goods are required to be
exchanged or otherwise causing inconvenience or demurrage being kept
in the store by the defendant. The defendant has casually mentioned in
its Written Statement that the plaintiff is liable to pay for keeping these
goods in his store and are paying the store charges if that so, the intention
of the defendant, he should be reasonable acted by way of any
Digitally signed
MUKESH by MUKESH
KUMAR
KUMAR GUPTA
Date: communication e-mail or even WhatsApp asking the plaintiff to either
GUPTA 2024.12.26
12:30:51 +0530CS (Comm.) No. 478/2023 M/s Sai Enterprises Vs. M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 25 of 31
Counter Claim No.28/2023 M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd Vs. M/s Sai Enterprises
taken the goods back, take any exchange in lieu thereof or take away the
goods within the reasonable period.
30. Needless to mention here that the sold products are cosmetics
goods which has their natural shelf life and shall expire within a period of
1 to 3 years generally. Despite that, the defendant has just accepted the
goods and kept in his store waiting for plaintiff to act which is highly
improbable or unacceptable to a reasonable prudent man. Interestingly,
the defendant has kept the returned goods for a long time despite
receiving the e-mail dated 20.07.2022 Ex.PW1/6 and legal notice dated
28.10.2022 Ex.PW1/7 (colly) from the plaintiff. The defendant itself has
breached the same as he has taken back the sold goods from the plaintiff.
In these circumstances, the defendant cannot expect the same equity
from the plaintiff. Accordingly, on the basis of records and discussion
aforesaid, the defendant appears to be taking a stand for defence only
rather than acting with reasonable prudence and business conventions.
31. Adverting to the legal notice dated 28.10.2022 sent to the
defendant vide postal receipt of the same dated (Ex. PW1/7) and the
same was duly delivered upon the defendant but the defendant did not
make care to even reply to the said Legal Notice. The plaintiff has duly
proved its legal notice dated 28.10.2022 Ex.PW1/7 sent through postal
receipt and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW1/8 to the
defendant which was not even responded to by the defendant. Once the
service of Legal Notice is admitted by the defendant, the defendant was
required to reply to the allegations made thereby refuting the contentions
Digitally signed
MUKESH by MUKESH
KUMAR
KUMAR GUPTA
Date: of legal notice and once he remained silent by ignoring to reply it shows
GUPTA 2024.12.26
12:30:57 +0530
CS (Comm.) No. 478/2023 M/s Sai Enterprises Vs. M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 26 of 31
Counter Claim No.28/2023 M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd Vs. M/s Sai Enterprises
that he had nothing to deny and an adverse presumption can also be
raised against him. Reliance placed on 1980 RLR (Note) 44 titled Kalu
Ram Vs. Sita Ram .
32. Admittedly, the payment of the outstanding in respect of returned
goods has not been made by the defendant to the plaintiff. Despite
aforesaid, the defendant has failed to appear in the pre-institution
mediation and a non-starter report dated 16.02.2023 has also been filed
on record. The defendant has failed to appear before DLSA (Central )
to put its defence or counter the claim of the plaintiff.
33. The testimonies of PW1 and DW1 and the documents discussed
above one by one in seritum and the fact that the defendant/ counter-
claimant has failed to prove any documentary or oral evidence to
controvert the aforesaid so as to the question of the very liability. Thus,
taken on the yardstick of preponderance of probability and on the basis of
documentary and oral evidence, the plaintiff has been able to prove his
entitlement for price of returned goods kept by defendant for almost a
period of 5 years without any whisper. On the other hand, the defendant
has utterly failed to prove its counter claim of Rs.3,32,353/- to the
plaintiff-respondent by not proving the ledger account alongwith the
invoices of sale and e-way bills as per the provision of law in respect to
Accounting Books. Thus, the plaintiff shall be entitled to recovery of
Rs.13,99,568/- against the defendant-counter claimant and the
defendant/counter-claimant shall not be entitled to any amount as
claimed in the counter claim.
Digitally signed
MUKESH by MUKESH
KUMAR GUPTA
KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2024.12.26
12:31:04 +0530CS (Comm.) No. 478/2023 M/s Sai Enterprises Vs. M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 27 of 31
Counter Claim No.28/2023 M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd Vs. M/s Sai Enterprises
34. In view of the aforesaid discussion and findings of the court, the
defendant/counter-claimant has failed to prove the claim as shown in its
ledger account of the returned goods of the plaintiff/respondent even on
the yardstick of preponderance of probabilities. While on the other hand,
the plaintiff has been able to successfully proved its claim of returned
goods on record and the claim of the defendant/counter claimant is only
a defence or a counter blast leading to the filing of a counter claim
being vexatious.
35. Accordingly Issues No. 1 in the main suit and issue No. 3 in the
counter claim are decided against the defendant/counter-claimant and in
favour of plaintiff and issues No. 3 in the counter- claim is decided in
favour of the respondent/plaintiff and against the counter-
claiment/defendant.
ISSUE NO.2 in the main suit and ISSUE NO.5 in the counter-
claim. :
“Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest on such amount and if so, at what rate
and for what period ? OPP”
“Whether the Counter-claimant is entitled to any interest on such amount, if so, for what rate and
for what period? OPD (CC)”.
36. The onus of proving these issues was also held upon the
plaintiff/respondent as well as on the counter-claimant/defendant who
have claimed an interest @ 18% per annum on their outstanding amount
pendentlite and future. However, the counter-claimant/defendant has
failed to prove its entitlement of counter claim, therefore no question
for award of interest on the counter claim arises. In so far as the
Digitally
signed by
entitlement of interest in respect of plaintiff claim is concerned, though
MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR
GUPTA
GUPTA
Date:
2024.12.26
there is a stipulation of 18% per annum on the invoices Ex.DW1/4 (colly)
12:31:10
+0530
CS (Comm.) No. 478/2023 M/s Sai Enterprises Vs. M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 28 of 31
Counter Claim No.28/2023 M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd Vs. M/s Sai Enterprises
and ExPW1/5 (colly). However, Hon’ble Supreme court in a number of
judgments reported as Pt. Munshi Ram @ Associates (P) Lt. Vs.
DDA, 2010 SCC Online Delhi 2444, Rajendra Construction Co. Vs.
Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority and others,
2005 (6) SCC 678, McDermott International Inc. Vs. Burn Standard
Co. Ltd. and others, 2006 (11) SCC 181, Rajasthan State Road
Transport Corporation Vs. Indag Rubber Ltd., (2006) 7 SCC 700,
Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. Vs. G. Harischandra, 2007 (2)
SCC 720 & State of Rajasthan Vs. Ferro Concrete Construction Pvt.
Ltd. (2009) 3 Arb. LR 140 (SC) has repeatedly mandated that courts
must reduce the high rates of interest on account of the consistent fall in
the rates of interest in changed economic scenario. Under the facts and
circumstances of the case, keeping in view the nature of transactions of
the case and the aforesaid settled law, court is of the considered opinion
that interest of justice would be met,if an interest @ 6% per annum is
granted to the plaintiff on the principal outstanding amount of
Rs.13,99,568/- w.e.f. the date when the goods were returned i.e.
11.11.2019 till the date of its realization which will automatically
include pre-suit, pendentlite and future interest. These issues are
accordingly, decided in favour of plaintiff and against the
defendant/counter claimant.
(J) CONCLUSION:-
ISSUE No.6: Relief in the main suit as well as in the counter claim
37. In view of the aforesaid discussions and findings of the court on
the aforesaid issues, the court is of the considered opinion that the
Digitally signed plaintiff/respondent has been able to successfully prove its entitlement to
MUKESH by MUKESH
KUMAR GUPTA
KUMAR Date:
2024.12.26
GUPTA 12:31:18
+0530 CS (Comm.) No. 478/2023 M/s Sai Enterprises Vs. M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 29 of 31
Counter Claim No.28/2023 M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd Vs. M/s Sai Enterprises
the recovery against the defendant/counter claimant and the
defendant/counter claim has failed to prove the same. The suit of the
plaintiff is accordingly decreed against the defendant for a sum of
Rs.13,99,568/- and the counter claim of Rs. 3,32,353/- is dismissed.
The plaintiff shall also be entitled to an interest @ 6% per annum on the
principal outstanding amount of Rs.13,99,568/- w.e.f. the date when the
goods were returned i.e. 11.11.2019 till the date of its realization which
will automatically include pre-suit, pendentlite and future interest.
38. In the specific facts and circumstances of the case, while the
plaintiff shall be entitled to the costs of the suit throughout, the defendant
shall bear the costs of its counter-claim alongwith the requisite costs of
litigation to be paid to the plaintiff/respondent.
39. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
40. File be consigned to record room after due completion.
Digitally signed
MUKESH by MUKESH
KUMAR GUPTA
KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2024.12.26
12:31:25 +0530(MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA)
DATED 24.12.2024 DJ (Commercial Court)-07
CENTRAL/DELHI
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURTCS (Comm.) No. 478/2023 M/s Sai Enterprises Vs. M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 30 of 31
Counter Claim No.28/2023 M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd Vs. M/s Sai Enterprises
CERTIFICATECertified that the judgment contains 31 pages and each page
has been digitally signed by me. The judgment was pronounced on
24.12.2024 in open court and is being checked and uploaded on
Digitally signed26.12.2024.
by MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
GUPTA
KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2024.12.26
12:31:33
+0530(MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA)
DJ (COMMERCIAL COURT)-07
CENTRAL/DELHICS (Comm.) No. 478/2023 M/s Sai Enterprises Vs. M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 31 of 31
Counter Claim No.28/2023 M/s Proline Beauty and Wellness Pvt. Ltd Vs. M/s Sai Enterprises
