HC: If the payments had been made in respect of the transaction then the source of the payment would not be relevant

  

On 11th October, a bench of Delhi High Court consisting of Justice Asha Menon in the case of M/S Woodpecker India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Raj Arora, it was held that prima facie, if the payments had been made in respect of the transactions entered into between the parties, the source of the payments would not be relevant.

The bench also held that since two properties of the defendant are already under lien with Punjab National Bank, therefore it will cause “irreparable loss and injury” to the plaintiff if no interim protection is granted inasmuch as the two properties.

Facts of the case:

The suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of Rs.2,27,93,523.76/- along with interest. The case, as set up by the plaintiff, is that the parties were having business transactions in plywood, wood, laminates, etc. A running account was being maintained and the plaintiff raised invoices from time to time upon the defendant for the goods/materials delivered to the defendant, who however, made only part payments. As a result, a sum of Rs.2,27,93,523.76/- became the outstanding principal amount. It is submitted that the plaintiff made several efforts to recover the said outstanding payment from the defendant, but the defendant was intentionally, deliberately and wilfully neglecting to pay the outstanding amount. Thus, the plaintiff was compelled to file the suit.

Contention of the defendant:

Mr. Kailash Chandra, learned counsel for the defendant, submitted  the following:

1. It was submitted that that the properties (b) and (c) i.e., the Factory and the House, were mortgaged with Punjab National Bank at Neelam Chowk, N.I.T, Faridabad (Haryana) as a collateral security, and that there was no scope for the defendant to create any third party interest in these properties.
2. Learned counsel for the defendant has further argued that the suit was based on a cheque, which the plaintiff claims, had been handed over by the defendant to the plaintiff on 12th July, 2021. On that very day, the Resolution was passed for filing of the suit, which shows that the story set up by the plaintiff of a Settlement was false.

Contention of the plaintiff:

 Mr.Mohit Chaudhary, learned counsel for the plaintiff, submitted the following:

Read also : HC to Citizens: Don't allow Digital Health aggregators to mislead you

1. The plaintiff urged before the Hon'ble Court that since the intention of the defendant was more than apparent that he was not going to discharge his obligations, the properties of the defendant be attached.

2. It was also submitted that the ledger account was a running account and the last payment had been made on 28th January, 2019 and therefore, the suit was well within time.

3. It was submitted that the property tax on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the defendant, had a totally different address and there was nothing on record which could show that Ms. Kanchan Arora was not related to the defendant. Thus, full disclosures had not been made.

Observation and judgement of the court:

The following observation has been made by the hon'ble court:

1. The defendant has not disputed having transactions with the plaintiff and having received goods and material against the invoices. With regard to the payments, an explanation has been sought to be offered that the same had been made not by the plaintiff but by the company.
2. Prima facie, if the payments had been made in respect of the transactions entered into between the parties, the source of the payments would not be relevant.
3. It is also amply clear that “irreparable loss and injury” would be caused to the plaintiff if no interim protection is granted inasmuch as the two properties of the defendant are already under lien with Punjab National Bank.

In the light of the above the interim injunction already granted on 20th July, 2021 is made absolute till the disposal of the suit. The defendant was thus restrained from alienating the properties.

Read Judgment ; 

 

SOURCE ; www.latestlaws.com 

Social media is bold.


Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!  


    We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure