Dismissed

Himanshu Saigal v. P K Astir

Delhi HC16 May 2018RFA/419/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the Regular First Appeal, C.M. Applications for exemption and delay condonation, and stay application. The court affirmed the trial court's decree for recovery of Rs. 3,19,350/-, dismissed the territorial jurisdiction challenge, and held the appeal liable to be dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed, the C.M. Application for exemption was allowed subject to exceptions, and the delay of 350 days was condoned.

Himanshu Saigal Vs P K Astir — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**

¶2

- RFA No. 419/2018

¶3

% 16^th May, 2018

¶4

HIMANSHU SAIGAL ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Abhishek, Advocate.

¶5

versus

¶6

P K ASTIR ..... Respondent

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

¶9

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

¶10

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

¶11

C.M. Appl. No. 20371/2018 (for exemption)

¶12

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶13

C.M. stands disposed of.

¶14

C.M. Appl. No. 20372/2018 (for delay)

¶15

For the reasons stated in this application, the delay of 350 days in filing the appeal is condoned, subject to just exceptions.

¶16

C.M. stands disposed of.

¶17

RFA No. 419/2018 and C.M. Appl. No. 20370/2018 (for stay)

¶18

This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code

¶19

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

¶20

RFA No.419/2018 Page 1 of 5

¶21

impugning the judgment of the trial court dated 21.1.2017 by which the trial court has decreed the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of Rs.3,19,350/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The suit has been decreed on account of the respondent/plaintiff supplying to the appellant/defendant knitted and embroidered fabrics and allied items.

¶22

The facts of the case are that respondent/plaintiff filed the subject suit pleading that the appellant/defendant placed upon the respondent/plaintiff at New Delhi orders for supply of goods. The goods were supplied by the respondent/plaintiff to the appellant/defendant and various bills were raised which were duly acknowledged by the appellant/defendant. In terms of the statement of account maintained at the closing of the financial year 2013-14 respondent/plaintiff claimed that an amount of Rs.3,19,350/- was due. Respondent/plaintiff pleaded that the last payment of Rs.10,800/was made by the appellant/defendant to the respondent/plaintiff on 22.3.2013. Since the appellant/defendant was not paying the amount due hence the respondent/plaintiff served a legal notice upon the appellant/defendant dated 9.10.2014 with a

¶23

RFA No.419/2018 Page 2 of 5

¶24

corrigendum dated 11.12.2014, and since this did not yield the desired result, hence the subject suit was filed.

¶25

5.(i) At this stage, I would like to note that though

¶26

appellant/defendant filed his written statement, however there is no evidence which was led by the appellant/defendant because appellant/defendant after filing his affidavit by way of evidence did not appear for cross-examination and therefore the affidavit by way of evidence filed of the appellant/defendant in law could not be looked at because the appellant/defendant did not subject himself to cross-examination.

¶27

(ii) Respondent/plaintiff has led evidence and proved his case. The statement of account was proved as Ex.PW1/22. The invoices of supply were proved as Ex.PW1 to PW21. The legal notice served by the respondent/plaintiff upon the appellant/defendant was proved as Ex.PW1/23 and the reply of the appellant/defendant was proved as Ex.PW1/24.

¶28

In my opinion since the respondent/plaintiff proved his case and appellant/defendant led no evidence and did not have the courage of conviction to step in the witness box to be cross-

¶29

RFA No.419/2018 Page 3 of 5

¶30

examined, the trial court has committed no illegality in accepting that the respondent/plaintiff has proved his suit claim, and accordingly the trial court has rightly decreed the subject suit for recovery of money on account of goods supplied.

¶31

Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant argued that

¶32

the trial court did not have territorial jurisdiction because goods were supplied at the office of the appellant/defendant at Noida and entire dealings were at Noida and therefore the trial court had no territorial jurisdiction because Courts at Delhi did not have territorial jurisdiction. The argument urged by the appellant/defendant in this regard is misconceived because respondent/plaintiff has pleaded in the plaint that the orders were placed by the appellant/defendant upon the respondent/plaintiff at New Delhi, and this is not specifically denied in the written statement, and therefore the place of conclusion of the contract will be Delhi where the offer of the appellant/defendant was accepted. Also the trial court has rightly held that it is the debtor who must seek the creditor, and therefore the creditor/plaintiff being at Delhi, the Courts at Delhi had territorial jurisdiction. Also, it was an undisputed fact appearing on record that

¶33

RFA No.419/2018 Page 4 of 5

¶34

in terms of the bills proved, the said bills had a clause of only the Courts at Delhi having territorial jurisdiction. Therefore, in my opinion, the trial court has committed no error in holding that the courts at Delhi had territorial jurisdiction.

¶35

8. Dismissed.

¶36

MAY 16, 2018 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
AK

Himanshu Saigal v. P K Astir

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Himanshu Saigal v. P K Astir

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Master Chinmay Kalra & Anr. Vs Mrs. Kaushlya Kalra & Ors.

Kuldeep Sharma & Ors. Vs Surender Kumar & Ors.

Rajbir Singh & Anr. Vs Jaswant Yavdav

Bhoop Singh (Deceased) Thr Lr Vs Umed Singh ( Deceased) & Ors.

Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs Premwati(Deceased) Thr Lrs

Sanjeev Kumar Gupta Vs Swati Dutta