Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: CS No. 143 / 2019
Dinesh Vs. Multiwal Judgment (Exh.33) 1 of 8
Suit Lodged on : 01.08.2019
Suit Admitted on : 23.10.2019
Suit Decided on : 18.09.2025
Duration : 06 Years, 01 Months 17 Days
MHCC010081522019
City Civil and Sessions Court, Mazgaon, Greater Mumbai
Court Room No. 31 – Commercial Court
Commercial Suit No. 143 / 2019
Exhibit No. 33
Dinesh B. Somani
Prop. of Jai Aravali Industries
Through Constituted Attorney
Ashok Satyanarayan Kabra Age 65
Having his office at 29, Khadak
Street, Room No. 36, 3rd floor,
Masjid Bunder Road,
Mumbai 400 009. … Plaintiff
V/s.
1. M/s. Multiwal Duplex Pvt. Ltd.
Factory : Gangapur Gosain
Kumeleshwari Road, Kashipur
244 713 (U. S. Nagar)
Uttarakhand.
2. M/s. S. R. Papers
Mr. Sitaram Yadav,
101 Mani Pripe CHS Ltd.
Ramdev Park, Mira Road (E),
Thane 401 107. … Defendants
Appearances :
Plaintiff : Adv. Mr. Sunil R. Yadav
Defendant No. 1 : Ex-parte
Defendant No. 2 : Adv. Mr. Praveen H. Rai
-- 1 of 8 --
CS No. 143 / 2019
Dinesh Vs. Multiwal Judgment (Exh.33) 2 of 8
CORAM : PRASAD P. KULKARNI
COURT ROOM NO.31.
DATE : 18.09.2025
***************************************************************
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on this 18th day of September, 2025)
Suit for recovery of amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- .
1. Plaintiff a proprietorship firm raised this suit against
defendants to recover an amount of Rs. 4,50,000/-.
Facts giving rise to the suit are as under :
2. Plaintiff is a proprietorship firm and defendant no. 1 is a
Private Limited Company whereas defendant no. 2 is a proprietorship
firm. It is contended that as per order placed by defendant no. 1,
plaintiff sold, supplied and delivered defendant no. 1 chemicals such as
HITEX S 380M, DISPERSANT PA-40, TITANIUM DIOXIDE, LUBRICANT
LB-50 and defendant no. 1 supplied said material to defendant no. 2.
Defendant no. 2 agreed that he will directly pay the amount to plaintiff.
3. As per this arrangement, during 28.11.2014 to 20.02.2015
plaintiff supplied goods to defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 1
supplied it defendant no. 2. Defendant no. 2 without any grievance
accepted said goods. Plaintiff received last payment from defendant no.
2 on 23.02.2016. Thereafter, defendant no. 2 issued three cheques vide
no. 100032, 100033, 100034 Dt. 18.01.2018 of Rs.1,50,000/- each.
Plaintiff deposited these cheques in bank but those were not honoured
on a reason that, “Payment stopped by the drawer”.
4. Plaintiff on 06.02.2018 issued a letter to defendants calling
-- 2 of 8 --
CS No. 143 / 2019
Dinesh Vs. Multiwal Judgment (Exh.33) 3 of 8
upon them to repay the amount. Defendant no. 2 on 17.02.2018 replied
letter of plaintiff. Plaintiff on 16.02.2018 issued a legal notice to
defendants and claimed Rs.4,50,000/-. Defendant no. 2 on 07.03.2018
replied legal notice of plaintiff. Thus, plaintiff sued both defendants to
recover Rs.4,50,000/-. However, plaintiff has not prayed for past or
future interest.
5. Writ of summons was issued to defendants. Defendant No. 2
appeared and filed written statement as per Exh.3. Plaintiff filed service
affidavit at Exh.7. Defendant no. 1 not appeared in the proceeding.
Hence, suit proceeded ex-parte against defendant no. 1 vide order Dt.
27.09.2021.
6. Defendant no. 2 in his written statement, which is filed at
Exh.3 denied entire claim of plaintiff. However, it is submitted that as
per request of defendant no. 1, this defendant had given multiple
cheques amounting to Rs. 8,99,033/- to plaintiff between 01.04.2015 to
20.02.2016. All the dues are cleared by defendant no. 2. As per
defendant no. 2, the cheques were issued on instructions of defendant
no. 1, that too, for the purpose of security only. As the entire amount
was paid to plaintiff, defendant no. 2 requested plaintiff to return the
cheques back. As plaintiff failed to do so, so defendant no. 2 informed
his bank not to make payment to plaintiff.
7. Defendant no. 2 contended that, product was delivered and
sold to defendant no. 1 on 26.02.2015 and plaintiff never asked the
payment within usual business credit limit of 60 or 90 days. Thus,
denying entire contention of plaintiff, defendant no. 2 submits that suit
may be dismissed against him.
-- 3 of 8 --
CS No. 143 / 2019
Dinesh Vs. Multiwal Judgment (Exh.33) 4 of 8
8. Considering rival pleadings, the then Presiding Officer framed
issues on 07.01.2023 vide Exh.10. Order in respect of Case
Management Hearing was passed on 24.08.2023.
9. To prove its case, plaintiff examined its Constituted Attorney
Mr. Ashok S. Kabra at Exh.13 and mainly relied on various documents
viz. Tax Invoices Exh.18 to 22 and cheques with dishonoured memos
Exh.23 to 28, letter Dt. 06.02.2018 Exh.29 and reply of defendant no. 2
Exh.30, 31 of 17.02.2018 and 07.03.2018. Defendants not tendered
evidence in rebuttal.
10. I have heard Learned Advocate Mr. Sunil R. Yadav appearing
on behalf of plaintiff. In view of Issues Exhibit 10, I have recorded my
findings for the reasons discussed as follows:
Sr. No. Issues Findings
1 Whether plaintiff proves that in
pursuance to the order placed by
defendant no. 1, plaintiff has sold,
supplied and delivered goods to
defendants?
In the Affirmative
2 Whether plaintiff proves that an amount
of Rs.4,50,000/- is due from
defendants?
In the Affirmative
3 Whether suit is within limitation? In the Affirmative
4 Whether plaintiff has cause of action to
file suit against defendant no. 2 ?
In the Affirmative
5 Whether defendant no. 2 proves that all
dues were cleared of the plaintiff against
defendant no. 2 ?
In the Negative.
6 Whether defendant no. 2 proves that he
had given three blank cheques to
plaintiff as a security deposits in month
of October, 2015?
In the Negative.
-- 4 of 8 --
CS No. 143 / 2019
Dinesh Vs. Multiwal Judgment (Exh.33) 5 of 8
7 Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover
an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- from
defendants? If yes at what rate of
interest?
In the Affirmative
8 What order and decree? As per final order.
R E A S O N S
Reasons as to Issue Nos. 1 to 8
As all issues are interconnected with each other, so they are discussed
together as under :-
11. Constituted Attorney of plaintiff Mr. Ashok Kabra in his oral
evidence at Exh.13 categorically deposed that as per demand raised by
defendant no. 1, plaintiff provided various material to defendant no. 1,
who in turn forwarded it to defendant no. 2. As per this witness,
defendant no. 2 agreed to pay the amount under invoices directly to the
plaintiff. In order to prove its contention, five invoices i.e. Exh.18 to 22
are placed on record as follows :
Invoice No. Exhibit No. Date Amount (Rs.)
001851 18 28.11.2024 8,78,016/-
002295 19 31.01.2015 1,81,642/-
002297 20 31.01.2015 1,71,268/-
002296 21 31.01.2015 1,64,016/-
002467 22 20.02.2015 37,559/-
12. On this backdrop, plaintiff deposed as defendant no. 2 agreed
to pay amount directly to plaintiff, so for remaining unpaid amount
defendant no. 2 issued three cheques of Rs.1,50,000/- each in favour of
plaintiff and those were not honoured, as payment was stopped by
defendant no. 2. These cheques and dishonour memos are at Exh.23
and 28. Plaintiff placed on record original cheques along with
-- 5 of 8 --
CS No. 143 / 2019
Dinesh Vs. Multiwal Judgment (Exh.33) 6 of 8
dishonour memos. So, it is evident that defendant no. 2 issued cheques
in favour of plaintiff and those were not honoured.
13. In written statement, defendant no. 2 raised a plea that entire
amount was paid to plaintiff and no amount was outstanding. If it is so,
then why defendant no. 2 issued three cheques in favour of plaintiff is
an unanswered question on record. Rather defendant no. 2 could have
easily stepped into witness box to discharge the burden on him.
However, defendant no. 2 neither conducted cross examination of
plaintiff nor tendered any evidence at all in support of his pleading.
Defendant no. 1 not appeared in the proceeding. So, it could be
defendant no. 2, who could throw some light on payment made by him
to plaintiff. However, absence of defendant speaks in volume.
14. Thus, there is no reason for this Court to disbelieve oral and
documentary evidence on record. Tax Invoices Exh. 18 to 22, which are
annexed with transport receipts are the documents, which established
that as per order placed, goods were supplied to defendants. Oral
evidence of plaintiff and dishonoured cheques with memos are
sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that Rs.4,50,000/- is the unpaid or
due amount. Date of dishonour of last cheque is 19.01.2018. Present
suit is filed in the year 2019. Hence, suit is within limitation. Defendant
no. 2 failed to step into witness box. Hence, in absence of evidence of
defendant no. 2, he failed to prove issue nos. 5 and 6.
15. Thus, oral and documentary evidence of plaintiff can be acted
upon. Suit is filed well within limitation. Hence, I answer issue nos. 1 to
4 and 7 in affirmative and issue nos. 5 and 6 in negative. Plaintiff is
entitled to recover Rs.4,50,000/- from defendants. Once again it is
-- 6 of 8 --
CS No. 143 / 2019
Dinesh Vs. Multiwal Judgment (Exh.33) 7 of 8
made clear that plaintiff has not sought past or future interest.
(Particulars of claim is silent in this regard). Hence, there is no reason
for this Court to award interest. Hence, suit is decreed and following
order is passed :
ORDER
1. Commercial Suit No. 143/2019 is decreed with cost.
2. Plaintiff is entitled to get Rs.4,50,000/- (Rs. Four Lakhs Fifty
Thousand only) from defendants.
3. Defendants, within three months from date of this Judgment,
shall jointly and severally pay, Rs.4,50,000/- (Rs. Four Lakhs
Fifty Thousand only) to the plaintiff.
4. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
5. Judgment is dictated and pronounced in open Court.
6. After compliance and period of Appeal, Shirestedar and AS to
consign Record of the suit, to Record Room.
Mumbai
Dated : 18.09.2025
(Prasad P. Kulkarni)
Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court,
Court Room No.31 - Commercial Court,
Mazgaon, Greater Mumbai
-- 7 of 8 --
CS No. 143 / 2019
Dinesh Vs. Multiwal Judgment (Exh.33) 8 of 8
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
18.09.2025 5.35 p.m. Prachi Y. Potdar
Stenographer - Grade I
Name of the Judge HHJ Shri. Prasad. P. Kulkarni
(C.R.NO. 31)
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgment/Order.
18.09.2025
Judgment/order signed by P.O on 18.09.2025
Judgment/order uploaded on 18.09.2025
-- 8 of 8 --