Summary suit appeal by a judgment debtor who supplied seven dishonoured cheques later replaced by one fresh cheque that also bounced. The Division Bench held the defence that the fresh cheque was blank security was moonshine and dismissed the appeal, upholding the decree with interest and costs.
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.
$~23
DALJEET SINGH BHATIA .....APPELLANT Through: Mr Brijesh Sharma, Adv.
versus
M/S KARAMSAR ELECTRONICS PVT. LIMITED .....RESPONDENT Through: None.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL)
2.1 Besides this, the trial court has also awarded simple interest to the respondent/plaintiff, at the rate of 12% per annum, commencing from the date of institution of the suit i.e., 06.06.2018 till the date of passing the
Signature Not Verified
RFA(COMM) 67/2022 Page 1 of 5
Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date: 28.0 8.2024 15:28:18
decree. This apart, costs were also awarded to the respondent/plaintiff. 3. The respondent/plaintiff filed the summary suit based on the following broad facts:
3.1 It is averred that the respondent/plaintiff sold the subject goods to the appellant/defendant. The subject goods consisted of electronic goods and equipments i.e., speakers, amplifiers, CCTV cameras, etcetera. The goods supplied by the respondent/plaintiff were subject matter of nine (09) invoices. These invoices spanned the period obtaining between 10.03.2018 and 30.03.2018. The cumulative value of these goods was pegged at Rs.6,49,750.36, as on 31.03.2018.
3.2 Further, the case set up by the respondent/plaintiff was that against the aforementioned nine (09) invoices, certain payments were made by the appellant/defendant, of which the balance outstanding amount, as on 09.04.2018, was Rs.4,24,750.36.
3.3 Against the aforementioned outstanding sum, the respondent/plaintiff received a cheque bearing number 760491, drawn on Karnataka Bank Limited, dated 11.04.2018, amounting to Rs.4,25,950/-, which included Rs.1200/- towards the charge levied by the respondent’s/plaintiff’s banker with regard to the two (02) dishonoured cheques issued in the past by the appellant/defendant .
3.4 Admittedly, the aforementioned cheque, bearing number 760491, presented on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff, was also dishonoured. The respondent/plaintiff received a memo dated 18.04.2018 from its banker i.e., Kotak Mahindra Bank [Chandni Chowk Branch, Delhi] which gave “funds insufficient” as the reason for dishonour of the cheque.
3.5. Evidently, the appellant/defendant, instead of making the payment of
Signature Not Verified
RFA(COMM) 67/2022 Page 2 of 5
Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date: 28.0 8.2024 15:28:18
the entire amount, remitted to the respondent/plaintiff, via RTGS, Rs.45,000/- on the same date i.e., 18.04.2018.
3.6 Consequently, the outstanding debt, which the appellant/defendant had to defray, was scaled down to Rs.3,80,950/-.
3.7. Thus, the respondent/plaintiff filed a summary suit for Rs.3,80,950/-. In addition thereto, interest was also claimed by the respondent/plaintiff at the rate of 18% per annum.
Signature Not Verified
RFA(COMM) 67/2022 Page 3 of 5
Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN
Signing Date: 28.0 8.2024 15:28:18
(ii) Because monies were paid in cash, the respondent plaintiff had returned the cheques, the details of which are set forth hereafter:
| Cheque no. | Date | Amount (Rs.) |
|---|---|---|
| 760459 | 19.03.2018 | 33,018/- |
| 760456 | 19.03.2018 | 64,779/- |
| 760477 | 28.03.2018 | 40,643/- |
| 760476 | 27.03.2018 | 60,000/- |
| 760478 | 31.03.2018 | 60,000/- |
| 760479 | 31.03.2018 | 49,238/- |
| 760480 | 01.04.2018 | 60,000/- |
| Total | 3,67,648/- |
Signature Not Verified
RFA(COMM) 67/2022 Page 4 of 5
Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date: 28.0 8.2024 15:28:18
was, thus, issued in lieu of the seven (07) cheques which were then returned by the respondent/plaintiff.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
AMIT BANSAL, J
AUGUST 14, 2024 /pmc
Signature Not Verified
RFA(COMM) 67/2022 Page 5 of 5
Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date: 28.0 8.2024 15:28:18
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the defendant's application for leave to defend a summary suit was rightly rejected and the suit decreed for the unpaid balance against dishonoured cheques.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Daljeet Singh Bhatia
M/S Karamsar Electronics Pvt. Limited
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
