Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1015 (RAJ)

Bank of Baroda v. Hindustan Pharmacuticals Ltd.

2025-04-04

NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

body2025
JUDGMENT : NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, J. 1. This civil first appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the judgment and decree dated 30.09.1994 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sikar in civil suit No. 150/90 whereby the trial Court partially dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff and partially allowed the counter-claim filed by the respondents-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’). 2. Brief facts of the case are as under:- Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,46,554.90/- against the defendants in which it was stated that plaintiff is entitled to get interest @ 19.5% per annum by quarterly rest. It was also stated in the plaint that defendant Nos. 2 to 6 on behalf of defendant No.1-Hindustan Pharmaceuticals Ltd. got a credit facility from the plaintiff of bill purchase and obtained credit facility upto Rs. 3 Lakhs through documents. Defendant Nos. 7 and 8 were their guarantors. Defendants also executed documents in favour of the plaintiff as mentioned in para No. 3 of the plaint. On account of dishonor of bilty, the plaintiff claimed money given as an advance credit facility with interest. As per the transaction, defendants were liable to pay Rs. 1,63,458/- and litigation expenses Rs. 204/- along with interest upto date 22.12.1988 amounting to Rs. 3492.90/- out of which margin money of Rs. 20,600/- was deducted. Total due amount from the defendants was Rs. 1,46,554.90/-. 3. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and admitted the bill purchase credit facility granted to them and further stated that they were allowed only 75% money and bank kept 25% margin money. They claimed the said money in the counter-claim. Defendant Nos. 9 and 10 also filed the written statement but did not contest the suit. 4. They claimed the said money in the counter-claim. Defendant Nos. 9 and 10 also filed the written statement but did not contest the suit. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- ¼1½ D;k oknh cSad fuxfer fudk; gS vkSj Jh ,l0,l0 ekFkqj jhtuy eSustj oknh cSad ds fof/kor fu;qDr lokZf/kdkjh gS\ ¼2½ D;k okni= dh pj.k la[;k 3 esa fy[ks vuqlkj izfroknh la[;k 2 yxk;r 6 us cgSfl;r [kqn rFkk cgSfl;r Hkkxhnkjku QeZ izfroknh la[;k 1 ysVj vkWQ ch0ih0 vUMj Vsfdax rkjh[k 16-11-1985] eky n`f"VcU/kd i= rFkk Vsd fMyhojh ysVj ,oa _.k nLrkost uEcj 11 e; vU; _.k izi=kas ds lHkh rkjh[kh 16-11-1985 e; ,y0Mhvkslh 39 muesa ntZ 'krkZsa dks lEidZ dj lgh gksuk Lohdkj dj LogLrk{kfjr fu"ikfnr o lEikfnr fd;s\ ¼3½ D;k izfroknh la[;k 2 yxk;r 6 us cgSfl;r [kqn rFkk cgSfl;r Hkkxhnkjku QeZ izfroknh la[;k 1 fcy ijpst V?kUtsD'kul uEcj 85@17] 86@6] 86@12] 86@8] 86@9] 86@10] 86@11] 86@13 ds rgr fcy ijpst lqfo/kk izkIr djh vkSj 1]83]271-92 iSlk dh jkf'k dk xyr izdkj ls MkWD;wesUVl nsdj jsyos xqMl fjlhVl dk nq#i;ksx djds vukf/kd`r #i ls miHkksx esa yh\ ¼4½ D;k oknh cSad izfroknhx.k ls okn i= dh pj.k la[;k 8 eas fy[ks vuqlkj 1]46]554-90 iSls dh ewy jkf'k rFkk mDr jkf'k ij 23@12@88 ls pqdrh olwyh rd 19-5 izfr'kr okf"kZd =Sekfld [k.M vfHko`fRr dh 'krZ lfgr C;kt ikus ds fy;s vf/kdkjh gS\ ¼5½ D;k oknkrsj dh pj.k la[;k 7 esa fy[ks vuqlkj oknh }kjk 86@2] 86@12 ds vykok vU; oknxzLr lHkh fcy V?kUtsD'kal uEcj 85@9] 85@10] 85@11] 85@14 rFkk 86@7 V?kUtsD'kku ls lEcfU/kr jkf'k oknh cSad esa tek djk nsus ij Hkh okil u ykSVkus dk dk;Z xSj dkuwuh gS vkSj jsyos ds fo:) dk;Zokgh uk djus ds dkj.k oknh Lo;a mRrjnk;h gS\ ;fn gka rks bldk okn ij D;k izHkko gS\ ¼6½ D;k oknkrsj dh pj.k la[;k 8 esa fy[ks vuqlkj oknh ekftZuy jkf'k 25 izfr'kr ij C;kt nsus ds fy, vkc) Fkk vkSj ;fn gka rks bldk okn ij D;k izHkko gS\ ¼7½ D;k oknkrsj dh pj.k la[;k 13 esa fy[ks vuqlkj izfroknhx.k ds ftEes 30]000 :i;s dh jkf'k xyr :i ls ugha ek.Mh xbZ gS] ;fn gka rks bldk okn ij D;k izHkko gS\ ¼8½ D;k okn vof/k ckf/kr gS\ ¼9½ D;k izfroknhx.k oknksrj dh pj.k la[;k 17 esa fy[ks vuqlkj rFkk 18 esa fy[ks vuqlkj oknh cSad ls 1]45]000 :i;s dh jkf'k ikus ds fy;s vf/kdkjh gS vkSj ;fn gka rks ml ij D;k izfroknh i{k 18 izfr'kr ls C;kt oknh cSad ls ikus ds fy;s vf/kdkjh gS\ ¼10½ vuqrks"k\ 5. To prove its case, plaintiff got examined PW-1 Babulal and PW-2 Ramesh Chand Khandelwal and defendants got examined DW-1 Ramesh Sharma. In rebuttal, plaintiff got examined PW3-Sant Kumar Ajmera. 6. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the trial Court partially dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff and ordered that the plaintiff is entitled to get Rs. 82,648.80/- with interest 19.5%per annum and also partially decreed the counter-claim filed by the defendants upto Rs. 9348.30/-. 7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the trial Court has committed an error in partially dismissing the suit as well as in partially allowing the counter-claim filed by the defendants because the trial Court had not appreciated the evidence led by the parties. Plaintiff in its plaint clearly mentioned that they had not deducted 25% margin money i.e. Rs. 20,600/-. They had filed the suit for 75% money which was given as cash to the defendants. 8. Learned counsel further submits that in the evidence of the plaintiff, PW-1 Babulal and PW-2 Ramesh Chand proved the contention of plaintiff. Nothing was disclosed in their cross-examination in favour of defendants. 9. Learned counsel further submits that during trial, plaintiff had filed the application under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC for taking certain documents on record but the trial Court wrongly dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff. As per the evidence of the plaintiff, Rs. 1,46,554.90/- was due to the defendants. Learned trial Court wrongly dismissed the suit partially and wrongly allowed the counter-claim filed by the defendants. 10. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that as per the agreement, interest @ 19.5% was charged with quarterly rest but the trial Court without any reason granted yearly interest. So, the judgment and decree dated 30.09.1994 passed by the trial Court deserves to be modified. 11. Learned counsel for the defendants has opposed the arguments advanced by counsel for the plaintiff and submitted that the trial Court has rightly allowed the counter-claim filed by the defendants and rightly deducted the margin money from the due amount. So, the present appeal filed by the plaintiff being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 12. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the plaintiff as well as the defendants and perused the impugned judgment. 13. So, the present appeal filed by the plaintiff being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 12. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the plaintiff as well as the defendants and perused the impugned judgment. 13. The trial Court while deciding the issues elaborately discussed the evidence led by the parties and rightly came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to get only 75% of the money advanced by them as cash because they had kept 25% margin money with them and rightly granted the interest @ 19.5% per annum. So, in my considered opinion, the present appeal filed by the plaintiff being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. 14. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.