High CourtsSingle Bench(2014) 02 DEL CK 0302

PP Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. vs Modern New Kapoor Jewellers Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi High Court · Decided on 4 February 2014 · Citation: (2014) 2 ILR 1425

HON’BLE JUDGES
G.S. Sistani, J.
RESULT
Disposed off
CASE NUMBER
CS(OS) No. 1009/2012

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 363 words

G.S. Sistani, J.�Plaintiff has filed the present suit under the provisions of Order 37 CPC for recovery of Rs. 81.72 lacs with pendente lite and future interest. As per the plaint, the business transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant took place against plaintiff''s two invoices being No. 02585 dated 1.7.2010 and the invoice No. 02879 dated 14.7.2010. The invoices were signed by the director of the defendant company i.e. Sita Ram Kapoor in acknowledgment of purchasing new ornaments, which were duly described in the invoices which reads as under:

2.

Further as per the plaint the defendant made payments against the part invoices by sending remittance through its bank and also by issuing account payee cheques in favour of the plaintiff. The cheques were handed over which were duly encashed, however, further unpaid amount was given through cheque bearing No. 981943 dated 29.6.2011 drawn on Barclays Bank, Nehru Place, New Delhi, for the sum of Rs. 72.0 lacs. which was handed over to the plaintiff. Upon presentation the aforesaid cheque was returned with the remarks ''Exceeds arrangement''.

3.

It is pointed out that the original cheque has been filed under the proceedings of Negotiable Instruments Act, however, a certified copy of the cheque has been placed on record. The defendant was served with the summons in the prescribed form; address for service was filed, however, mere is no application for leave to defend on record.

4.

It may however, be noticed that on making a statement by counsel for the defendant on 21.10.2013 that an application for leave to defend has been filed by diary No. 89066 dated 31.5.2013, the defendant was directed to check up with the Registry and place the application on record after removing the defects. As per the report of the Registry no such application has been filed.

5.

In the absence of any application for leave to defend, as per Rule-3(5) of Order 37 CPC, the present suit is decreed. Plaintiff will be entitled to interest @8% pendente lite and future interest at the same rate till realization.

I.A. 6809/2012 & I.A. 1037/2013

6.

In view of order passed in the suit, the applications stand disposed of.