The High Court of Delhi dismissed an appeal challenging a commercial court judgment regarding a debt recovery suit. The appeal relied on a disputed document establishing a representative's signature but failed to prove the document, resulting in the dismissal.
The appeal was dismissed. The interlocutory application pending was also closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~32
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.: (ORAL)
CM APPLs. 7832-33/2024
RFA(COMM) 39/2024 and CM APPL. 7831/2024 [Application filed on
behalf of the appellant seeking interim relief]
2.1 The fate of the appeal is pivoted, even according to the appellant, on one document, i.e., Ex.DW-1/3, as would be evident from what is stated hereafter:
Signature Not Verified
RFA(COMM)No.39/2024 Page 1 of 3
Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date: 12.0 2.2024 11:56:56
component was concerned, the respondent/plaintiff sought recovery of Rs.1,13,650/- calculated @ 18% per annum.
4.1 Besides this, it is also contended on behalf of the appellant/defendant that certain goods were received from the respondent/plaintiff and subsequently returned, qua which respondent/plaintiff gave credit amounting to Rs.1,37,327/-. Therefore, the appellant/defendant claimed that if the adjustment made qua the value of tokens/coupons/coins and returned goods is taken into consideration, money, if any, would be payable to the appellant/defendant and not the other way round.
7.1 It is, therefore, contended by Mr Jain that the trial court ought to have taken this fact into account and then reached a conclusion as to whether
Signature Not Verified
RFA(COMM)No.39/2024 Page 2 of 3
Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date: 12.0 2.2024 11:56:56
money, as claimed by the respondent/plaintiff in the suit action, was due to be paid by the appellant/defendant.
8.1 Pertinently, the trial court has concluded that the document, i.e., Ex.DW-1/3 has not been proved by the appellant/defendant. It is observed by the trial court that neither was Anil Kumar produced as a witness nor was any other witness tendered to prove the signatures of Anil Kumar.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
AMIT BANSAL, J
FEBRUARY 8, 2024 / tr
Signature Not Verified
RFA(COMM)No.39/2024 Page 3 of 3
Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date: 12.0 2.2024 11:56:56
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal succeeded in showing that the document Ex.DW-1/3 established a representational fact sufficient to overturn the trial court's conclusion.
Whether the trial court erred in holding that the document was not proved in the absence of witness production.
Whether the assertion by the respondent that Anil Kumar was its representative sufficed to sustain the appellant's claim.
Jita Mal Satpal
Bhiwadi Polymers Ltd
Rajiv Shakdher
Amit Bansal
As recorded by the court registry
A first appeal against a decree of a Commercial Court under the Commercial Courts Act 2015.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
