RSA--198/2018. Case: VIKRAM KUMAR Vs. PARVESH GUPTA. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | RSA--198/2018 |
| Citation | NA |
| Judgement Date | December 12, 2018 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RSA 198/2018 & CM. APPL.50941-50942/2018
Judgment reserved on: 07.12.2018 Date of decision: 12.12.2018
VIKRAM KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. TPS Kang, Advocate with
Mr. Sidharth Singh, Advocate versus
PARVESH GUPTA ..... Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
JUDGMENT ANU MALHOTRA, J.
-
The appellant vide this regular second appeal i.e. RSA 198/2018 under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 assails the impugned judgment dated 05.11.2018 of the Ld. ADJ-06, Central, THC, New Delhi in RCA 62003/2016 which upheld the judgment dated 18.10.2016 of the learned trial Court of the CCJ-cumARC (Central District), THC, New Delhi in Suit No.18/14 (old number), 96521/2016 (New Number) where a suit for recovery of Rs.183163 filed by the respondent herein as plaintiff thereof against the appellant herein as defendant thereof as price of the goods supplied to the defendant/appellant herein were held to have not been paid by the defendant/appellant which were supplied vide bills Ex. PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/4.
-
The appellant whilst disputing the receipt of any goods as noted hereinabove, as submitted that the following substantial questions of law arise in the matter:
“a. Whether a contract for delivery of goods requires under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, to prove delivery of goods and also lays down that on whom the burden lies for proving such delivery of goods and whether in the present case, such a burden of proof has been discharged by the plaintiff in terms of Indian Evidence Act or not.
-
Whether in terms of Chapter IV, the Plaintiff was able to prove the delivery, consequent upon which, he was entitled to the price of such goods whose delivery was disputed by the Defendant and in case of absence of such proof, in terms of Sale of Goods Act, 1930, and in terms of Indian Evidence Act, such recovery qua the delivery of goods could have been accepted and decreed.”
It is thus essential to consider the entire available evidence on record which is being so done.
-
-
It was contended by the appellant that the goods in question never reached the defendant i.e. the appellant herein and thus there was no question of any payment being ordered to be made by the defendant/appellant inasmuch as the burden for proving that the goods had been delivered to the respondent herein was on the plaintiff i.e. the respondent herein which had not been discharged.
-
Reliance was placed on behalf of the appellant on provision of Section 55 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 which provides to the effect:
“55. Suit for price.—
(1) Where under a contract of sale the property in the goods has passed to the buyer and the buyer wrongfully neglects or refuses to pay for the goods according to the terms of the contract, the seller may sue him for the price of the goods.
(2) Where under a contract of sale the price is payable on a day certain irrespective of delivery and the buyer wrongfully neglects or refuses to pay such price, the seller may sue him for the price although the property in the goods has not passed and the goods have not been appropriated to the contract.”
-
As per averments made in the plaint in Suit No. 18/2014, the plaintiff i.e. the respondent herein had claimed that he was running a business of ABS, PVDF, PVC, HDPE, SWR, PPR, CPVC, ASTM and other allied articles under the name and style of M/s Pipe Linkers and the defendant i.e. the appellant herein had business dealings with the plaintiff which was being maintained by the plaintiff/respondent in his books of accounts and that as per the statement of accounts, a sum of Rs.183163/- was due from the defendant/appellant herein which the defendant had failed to pay despite repeated request and demands of the plaintiff/appellant herein and thus two legal notices of demand dated 20.02.2014 and 07.03.2014 were sent through speed post/courier which were both served on the defendant i.e. the...
To continue reading
Request your trial