Smriti Industries India Pvt. Ltd. Though its Directors namely: ....Defendant (a). Mr. Balram Prasad Srivastav, (b). Ms. Sweta Sinha, All at: L366, Ground Floor, Sourabh Vihar Navin Badarpur, New Delhi110044. Above all also at: Plot No. 101, Kutla Farm, Near Swarg Ashram, Tilpat, Faridabad, Haryaya121003. Date of Institution : 04.02.2020. Final arguments : 16.09.2022. Date of decision : 22.10.2022. C.S. (Comm.) 16/2020 S.M. Bakers vs. Smriti Industries India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors page 1 of 23 JUDGMENT 1. The plaintiff 'S. M. Bakers', through its proprietor namely Mohd. Imran (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff') has filed a suit under Section 59 of Sales of Goods Act r/w Section 73 of Indian Contract Act against the defendant 'Smriti Industries India Pvt. Ltd.' (hereinafter referred to as the 'defendant'), through its directors namely Sh. Balram Prasad Srivastava and Ms. Sweta Sinha. 2. Brief facts of the case as revealed from the plaint are that the plaintiff wanted to purchase a machine/oven to start the business of manufacturing baked items. The plaintiff submits that the defendant is registered with 'Indiamart' for publicity and advertisement of its business, through which, the plaintiff came across the defendant. Further, he conveyed his desire to buy an oven from it and Shri Balram, who is one of the directors of the defendant alongwith a person namely Sh. Brijesh Yadav met him at Haldiram's Cross River Mall, Shahdara, Delhi and assured him that he would handover the machine/oven to the plaintiff within 25 days of making the initial payment by the plaintiff and also assured him that the machine/oven would be installed at his premises in working condition. 3. The plaintiff contends that he also visited at the factory of the defendant at Faridabad, Haryana and came to know that C.S. (Comm.) 16/2020 S.M. Bakers vs. Smriti Industries India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors page 2 of 23 Shri Balram and Ms. Sweta, who are directors of the defendant are husband and wife and he told them that he was not having the working capital to start the business and so, he was willing to take the loan under the 'Pardhan Mantri MSME Enterprises Scheme'. 4. The plaintiff further submits that he deposited a sum of Rs. 70,000/ in the account of the defendant on 07.11.2017 and thereafter, the defendant sent him a quotation through email vide reference no. SIIPL/201718/0021035/11/2017. He allege that though, the defendant initially assured him that it would send the machine/oven to the plaintiff after he would make the initial payment, but the defendant did not do so and hence, the plaintiff deposited a further sum of Rs. 30,000/ with the defendant, however, the defendant still created pressure upon him to pay more amount and hence, on 24.12.2017, the plaintiff gave a further sum of Rs. 1,10,000/ to the defendant. Thereafter, the defendant issued a confirmation letter reference no. SIIPL/201819/00212, dated 24th February, 2018 to the plaintiff regarding advance payment made by him. Further, the defendant also sent him another quotation through email vide letter reference no. SIIPL/2017 18/0025066/11/2018 for Rs. 7,24,756/ towards cost of improvised version of the earlier machine/oven, . He avers that the defendant had also assured him that it would start working on the machine/oven, but it did not honour its words and rather, the defendant pressurized him that it would C.S. (Comm.) 16/2020 S.M. Bakers vs. Smriti Industries India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors page 3 of 23 work on the machine/oven only after getting the entire payment. 5. The plaintiff contends that he also applied for availing a business loan from IDBI Bank Ltd., Yamuna Vihar, Delhi under 'Pardhan Mantari MSME Enterprises Scheme', which disbursed an amount of Rs.10,00,000/ to him, out of which, a sum of Rs. 5,43,567/ was deposited in the name of the defendant towards payment of the machine/oven by the plaintiff vide demand draft no. 004040 dated 27.03.2018. 6. The plaintiff allege that although, the d