Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CS (COMM) No. 492/2024
Amar Maurya Prop. Of Raj Plastic Vs. M S Misfire Apparels Private Ltd.
19.09.2024
Fresh suit received by way e-filing portal. Same is already checked and registered
in terms of e-Filing Rules of High Court of Delhi, 2021. No hard copy has been
submitted/accepted. Plaintiff counsel is directed to preserve originals as per Rule
10 of e-filing rules.
Present: Sh. Ram Kumar Soni, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
The suit seeks recovery of Rs.4,34,478/- alongwith interest @18%.
Perusal of the suit shows that it suffers from following flaws:
i. Check list is incorrectly filed and is not signed.
ii. Court fees paid is not locked.
iii. Memo of parties is not correct as it carries the name of directors of
the defendant company which is not permissible. There is nothing
on record to fasten any civil liability against the directors. It is a
settled legal proposition that Directors cannot be fastened with
personal liability for the money suit filed against a company as
company is a distinct juristic entity as held by Hon’ble High Courts
in
• Sanjiv Kumar Mittal Vs. Deputy Commissioner (TRC),
CGST Commissionerate Delhi South and Ors., 2020 Latest
Caselaw 3041 Del;
• “Tristar Consultations Vs. Vcustomer Services India Pvt.
Ltd”, 2007 Latest Caselaw 461 Del;
• New Horizons Ltd. Vs. Union of India,
MANU/SC/0564/1995;
-- 1 of 2 --
• Sunil Parmeshwar Mittal and Anr. Vs. Deputy
Commissioner (Recovery) Cell and ors., 2005 Latest Caselaw
998 Bom.
As such defendant no. 2 and 3 is dropped from the array of
defendants. Plaintiff is directed to file amended memo on record.
iv. The suit appears to be time-barred as the invoices are of 2019.
v. Plaintiff is relying on illegally recorded telephonic conversation
which is an offence under Indian Telegraphs Act.
vi. Plaintiff is seeking 18% interest w.e.f. 10.07.2019 but neither
quantified the pre-suit interest nor capitalised the same in the
principal amount. Also no Court fees is paid on the same.
vii. List of documents has blank spaces and is accordingly rejected.
viii. Affidavit under Order 11 Rule 6 CPC is not filed.
ix. Tracking report of legal notice not filed.
x. Certificate is filed under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act which
is a repealed law.
One week is granted to plaintiff to clear the above anomales.
Put up for further proceedings on 03.09.2024.
Next date of hearing is given as per convenience of plaintiff.
(SURINDER S. RATHI)
District Judge
Commercial Court-03
Shahdara District, KKD
Delhi/19.09.2024 (A)
-- 2 of 2 --