Delhi District Court Banwari Lal Arora And Sons vs Sh. Ranjeet Saini, Proprietor Of M/S Rsm ... on 19 May, 2025 IN THE COURT OF SH. AMIT KUMAR : DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT01) NORTH DISTRICT: ROHINI COURTS: DELHI CS (COMM.) NO.381/2020 CNR No. DLNT010068302020 M/s Banwari Lal Arora & Sons, A registered Partnership Firm, through its partner Anil Kumar Arora, G117, Gali no. 7, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi110042. Also At: 202, Ist Library Road, Azad Market, Delhi110006. Mob NO.9891040550, 9999924383. Email: [email protected] .....PLAINTIFF VS Ranjeet Saini, Proprietor of M/s RSM Enterprises, G31, Gali no. 2, Near Aruna Park, Shakarpur, Delhi110092. Mob No. 9871457751, Email: [email protected] ...DEFENDANT Date of institution of case : 29.10.2020 Date of arguments : 05.05.2025 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 19.05.2025 JUDGMENT: 1. Present is a suit seeking recovery of Rs. 30,64,453/ along with pendentelite and future interest @ 18% per annum and the brief facts necessary for disposal of this suit as averred in the plaint are that the plaintiff is a registered partnership firm and is Digitally signed Page No.1 of 11 AMIT by AMIT KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.05.19 16:02:09 +0530 super stockiest of M/s Parag Milk Foods Limited (refereed as PMF here in after). The defendant being sole proprietor of M/s RSM Enterprises and a distributor of PMF, approached the plaintiff through management of PMF and requested to supply the products of PMF like ghee, milk etc. The plaintiff supplied goods to defendant from time to time and as per running statement of account, as on 12.01.2018, a sum of Rs. 20,49,632/ stands outstanding against the defendant. The defendant in discharge of this liability issued a cheque of Rs. 20,49,632/ dated 30.04.2018 but the same returned uncleared for the reason "payment stopped by drawer". Legal notice dated 25.05.2018 was issued by plaintiff and complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was filed. Since the defendant did not pay, this suit has been filed to recover the outstanding amount with interest @18% per annum. 2. In the written statement, the defendant did not dispute the business relations between the parties. It was however stated that PMF is a necessary party. This court does not have territorial jurisdiction. Plaintiff is not a registered firm. On merits, it was stated that defendant was a distributor of PMF and plaintiff being super stockiest of PMF approached the defendant at his office. The partners of the plaintiff and the employees of PMF used to collect security cheques from the distributors and shop keepers in the market before supplying the goods. The plaintiff also collected security cheque from the defendant bearing cheque no. 000100 before supplying the goods. Similarly, defendant also gave two blank cheques to PMF for security purposes. The plaintiff and PMF between 31.10.2017 to 30.12.2017 adopted Digitally signed Page No.2 of 11 AMIT by AMIT KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.05.19 16:02:14 +0530 tendency to supply goods in the market without prior order and without knowing the requirement of the distributor. The plaintiff and the employees of PMF namely Mr. Vinay Gupta, Mr. Anil Dubey, Mr. Bhaskar Sharma tried to supply goods in huge quantity to the defendant without order and deliberately raised bills. The PMF raised bills of Rs.43,80,836/ and the plaintiff raised bills of Rs.48,78,804/. The defendant kept goods only worth Rs.24,73,597/ from PMF and of Rs.28,29,172/ of the plaintiff. The defendant had already made payment of Rs.24,73,597/ to PMF and of Rs.28,29,172/ to the plaintiff. The rest of the goods were returned and taken back by Mr. Bhaskar Sharma who was the sales officer of PMF, at the instance of plaintiff and PMF and hence, there is no liability of the defendant. The cheque in question was got stopped by the defendant as the plaintiff despite several request did not return the security cheque. It is stated that the present suit is a counter blast to the criminal complaint filed by the defendant against the plaintiff, PMF and its employees in the year 2018. 3. In the replication, the contents of the WS were disputed and that of the plaint were reiterated. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 25.07.2022: (i) Whether the plaintiff had supplied goods worth of Rs.20,49,632/ to the defendant? OPP (ii) Whether the cheque bearing no.000100 dated 30.04.2018 in the sum of Rs.20,49,632/ issued by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff was in fact issued as a