Full News
As plaintiff could nt establish case for recovery, hence no interest paid.
As plaintiff could nt establish case for recovery, hence no interest paid.
Defendant placed purchase orders & plaintiff supplied goods. Delivery was made. Certain amt. of payment remained due with defendant. Plaintiff sent legal notice. Later filed suit for recovery. Court held, as plaintiff has not been able to able to establish entitlement of relief of recovery of amt, Q. of entitlement of interest does not arise & hence, interest can't be granted. Defendants unable to establish, no cause of action from their evidence.-500309
Facts in brief:
1. Defendant placed purchase orders and the plaintiff supplied the goods and generated invoices. Entries were made in the statement of accounts maintained by the plaintiff as well. The delivery was effected within the stipulated period without delay.
2. The defendant made part payment from time to time and Rs.1,91,823.40/ was due and payable as per the statement of account maintained by the plaintiff.
3. Legal notice was also issued to which reply was also received.
4. In the reply it was stated that the plaintiff did not Suit No. 348/13 effect the delivery within schedule.
5. Hence, Plaintiff filed recovery suit.
Court held as under:
6. As plaintiff has not been able to discharge the onus or its entitlement for relief sought. As plaintiff has not been able to able to establish the entitlement the relief of recovery of the amount, the question of entitlement of interest does not arise and hence, the interest cannot be granted. Consequently this issue is decided against the plaintiff.
Q. Whether there is no cause of action in favor of the plaintiff to file the present suit?
7. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant that there was no cause of action in favor of the plaintiff to file the present suit. It has already been observed in issue no. 2 that plaintiff has not been establish its case. Findings of issue no. 2 be read as part and parcel of issue no. 1 as well. However, defendants were per se not able to establish that there is no cause of action from their evidence.
8. Taking a holistic view the evidence on record and findings of issue no. 2, this court does not find any cause of action in favor of plaintiff. In dearth of any evidence this issue is decided in favor of defendant.
9. In light of the above detailed discussion and findings of issue no. 2, this court does not find merit in the case of the plaintiff and the suit is therefore dismissed.
Case Reference-J.S. Furnishings Pvt. Ltd vs M/S Hotel The Ashoka
IN THE COURT OF Ms. TANVI KHURANA, CIVIL JUDGE01 (South) SAKET COURTS NEW DELHI
×
