Dismissed

M/S Bhajan Lal Rajani Kant v. M/S Kapoor Engineering Ltd.

Rajasthan HC9 Dec 2021CFA/103/1994

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed an appeal against a money decree of Rs. 49,190.87 for recovery of dues. The Court affirmed the Trial Court's findings that the suit was within limitation due to proved part payments, dismissed jurisdiction objections, and questioned the findings regarding quantum and interest at 6%.

What did the court decide?

Granted confirmation of the money decree. There is no order as to costs.

M/S Bhajan Lal Rajani Kant Vs M/S Kapoor… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 103/1994

¶3

M/s Bhajan Lal Rajani Kant (Barouli Chharwale)

¶4

A desolved partnership firm, registered dealer of Koopar Oil Engine, Kherli Mandi, District Alwar, Rajasthan

¶5

Bhajan Lal S/o Sh. Kundanlal

¶6

Rajni Kant S/o Sh. Hetram

¶7

Appellant No. 2 & 3 are partners of M/s Bhajan Lal Rajani Kant, R/o Village Barouli Chhar Near Kherli, District Alwar, Rajasthan

¶8

----Appellants

¶9

Versus

¶10

M/s Koopar Engineering Ltd. Branch officer 10, Motilal Atal Road, Jaipur Through Secretary, Sh. K.V. Sethi

¶11

M/s The Universal Supply Corporation, Jaipur Somani Building, M.I. Road, Jaipur through Partner Sh. Prakash Chandra Sogani

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Appellant(s) : Mr. M.M. Ranjan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rohan Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Advocate for Ms. Sukriti Kasliwal, Advocate

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶15

Order

¶16

09/12/2021

¶17

This first appeal has been filed by the defendant-appellants assailing the money decree dated 18.04.1994 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 146/1989 in favour of the plaintiff-respondents.

¶18

The brief facts as culled out from the record that one agreement dated 23.08.1969 was entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendants where under the sub-dealership to

¶19

(2 of 5)

¶20

[CFA-103/1994]

¶21

sell the Koopar Oil Engine Pumps and accessories was given to the defendants. The plaintiff’s case is that he delivered 88 engines having worth of Rs. 3,32,926/- but the defendant has not paid the entire cost and paid only Rs. 2,55,420/-, therefore, Rs. 77,506.27/- remains due against the defendants. The plaintiffs averred that against the said due amount, after some deductions, the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 49,190.87/- from the defendants. The plaintiffs have averred that the last payment was made by the defendants vide receipts dated 25.11.1974, 02.12.1974 & 08.01.1975. Therefore, the civil suit for recovery filed on 07.01.1978 is well within the limitation and the same deserves to be decreed.

¶22

The appellant-defendants submitted the written statement and denied the averments of plaintiff. Although, delivery of 88 engines were not disputed, however, the due amount was disputed, questioning the plaintiff’s calculations. The main objection was taken that the suit is barred by limitation and same is not triable before the Court at Jaipur. The defendants also contended that the parties had mutually settled the accounts on 30.09.1974, therefore, the present suit for recovery is not liable to succeed.

¶23

On the basis of rival pleadings by both the parties, learned Trial Court framed as many as 18 issues, including the issue of relief and recorded the evidence of both the parties. After hearing both the parties, learned Trial Court has decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 18.04.1994 and thus, this appeal has been filed.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

¶25

(3 of 5)

¶26

[CFA-103/1994]

¶27

The main thrust of arguments of the counsel for the appellant-defendants is that the present civil suit for recovery is barred by limitation. Learned counsel submits that once the parties have mutually settled the accounts on 30.09.1974 and there is no proof of making any part payment on 08.01.1975, therefore, the present suit filed on 07.01.1978 is beyond limitation and deserves to be dismissed.

¶28

As far as this objection is concerned, the Trial Court has framed issue Nos. 2, 14 & 17. While deciding these issues, the Trial Court has discussed the evidence on record and concluded that the defendants have miserably failed to prove the mutual settlement of accounts between the parties on 30.09.1974. The Trial Court has found that the plaintiffs have produced receipts exhibit Nos. 5, 6 & 7 to show that the part payment was made by defendants on 25.11.1974-Rs. 500/-, on 02.12.1974-Rs. 500/and that on 08.01.1975- Rs.1,000/-. These documents have been exhibited and proved by PW-1 (Balkrishan) and PW-4 (S R Kohli).

¶29

This Court finds that as per the evidence available on record, the findings given by the Trial Court are just and proper. There is no illegality or perversity in the findings as far as the issue No. 2, 14 & 17 are concerned. The contention of defendants that the plaintiff has not produced his account books to prove the last payment by defendants, is not sustainable as the receipts exhibit Nos. 5, 6 & 7 are available on record to show the part payment made by the defendants.

¶30

As far as the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction of the Jaipur Court is concerned, the Trial Court has dealt with this objection in the issue No. 4 and observed that the agreement dated 23.08.1969 (exhibit No. 15) was executed between the

¶31

(4 of 5) [CFA-103/1994]

¶32

parties at Jaipur, therefore, the Court at Jaipur has jurisdiction to trial the present civil suit. This Court does not find any illegality in such findings. Mere oral objection of the defendants that Court at Jaipur has no territorial jurisdiction without support of any other evidence, is not sustainable.

¶33

Learned counsel for the appellant-defendants has also disputed the quantum of amount of Rs. 49,190.87/- decreed against the defendants. The Trial Court has framed independent and separate issue to deal with the due amount under the different heads and has also framed counter issues as per defence of the defendants. The issue No. 5 pertains to the due amount of Rs. 33,272/- as costs of 12 engines which have been found recoverable by the plaintiff. The issue No. 8 has been decided in relation to the amount of 5671.50/- on account of non-working parts of engines. In the issue No. 9, the amount of Rs. 6120/- has been dealt with. In issue No. 10, the amount of credit note Rs. 4229/- has been discussed. In issue No. 11, the amount of Rs. 3702.05/- against the over-riding commission has been discussed. In issue No. 12, the amount of Rs. 2004.88/- has been found to be deducible. In issue No. 13, the security amount of Rs. 1500/has been found to be deducible. In issue No. 18, the Trial Court has considered and discussed all the due amounts as also the amounts which are adjustable and thereafter has concluded that the plaintiff is entitled to recover total Rs. 49,190.87/- from the defendants. The findings of the Trial Court on all the issues have been given after due appreciation of the pleadings and evidence on record. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in such findings as such same are liable to be affirmed.

¶34

(5 of 5) [CFA-103/1994]

¶35

It is amply clear that the Trial Court has dealt with each and every objection of the appellant-defendants and all the objections have been denied after framing independent and separate issues. The issue Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 & 13 have already been decided in favour of the defendants and the amount under different heads have been found to be adjustable against the due amount.

¶36

As far as the rate of interest on the due amount is concerned, the Trial Court has awarded 6% simple annual interest which cannot be said to be of higher rate of interest.

¶37

By perusal of the record of this appeal, it transpires that this first appeal was admitted for hearing on 27.02.1997 and during course of appeal, the execution of the money decree was not stayed. Both the counsel for the parties are not in a position to apprise the Court as to whether the decree dated 18.04.1994 has been executed or not.

¶38

Be that as it may, considering the fact that impugned money decree has been passed only for amount of Rs. 49,190.87/- and the Trial Court, after framing independent and separate issues, has discussed each and every issue according to the pleadings and evidence available on record; further this Court has not found any illegality or perversity in such findings, this Court is not inclined to interfere in such findings and thus, the impugned decree for recovery of money of Rs. 49,190.87/- with interest @ 6% per annum is affirmed.

¶39

This first appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly, dismissed. There is no order as to costs.

¶40

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶41

SAHIL SONI /03

M/S Bhajan Lal Rajani Kant v. M/S Kapoor Engineering Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Bhajan Lal Rajani Kant v. M/S Kapoor Engineering Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shyamsundar Vs Satyanarayan

Suman Kanar Vs Kashi Ram

Gram Panchayat Kudi Bhagtasni Vs Dalpat Singh

Rajasthan State Seed Corp Limited Vs M/S Vijay Seeds Companu Jalana

Smt. Deepika W/O Lokesh Pareek D/O Ramesh Chand Pareek, Vs Lokesh Pareek S/O Malaram Pareek

M/S Sohan Textiles Industries Vs P N B