TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (11) TMI 1247
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eceived from the defendants. Thereafter the plaintiff made repeated requests and reminders and notice of demand dated 7th April, 2010 was served upon the defendant. After the service of the legal notice dated 7th April, 2010, defendant No.2 approached the plaintiff at its office at Delhi and on 13th October, 2010 made a written balance confirmation of the amount of Rs. 17,58,865/-. By way of an affidavit/undertaking dated 13th October, 2010 the defendant No.2 gave 5 cheques bearing Nos.440144, 440145, 440146, 440147, 440138 each for Rs. 1,00,000/- and the balance amount of Rs. 12,58,865/- was to be paid in the month of December, 2010 and January, 2011. The said affidavit/undertaking has been reproduced herein below:- "I, Bharat Bhushan S/o Sh. Kessar Dass R/o H.No.360, Rajiv Poram, Gali No.2, Bhind, Sec-6 Karnal (Haryana) do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under :- 1. That, I am owner of Khurana Electricals having office at 360, Rajiv Puram, Gali No.2, Phossgarh, Karnal. 2. That I was worked as Distributor of Far East Marketing (P) Ltd. 3. That I have to pay Rs. 17,58,865/- (Seventeen Lacs Fifty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty Five) to Far East Marketing (P) Limite....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ants. Notice of that application was issued on 4th May, 2011 in the prescribed Form No.4A in Appendix-B of CPC for 23rd May, 2011. The defendants were served with summons for judgment on 18th October, 2011. In response thereto, the defendants have sought leave to defend in the present application being I.A.No.17592/2011 raising the following grounds of triable issues:- (i) It is stated in the application that the plaintiff has filed one document, which it claims to be the Affidavit/Undertaking dated 13th October, 2010, duly signed by the defendants, which is purported to be acknowledgement of debt by the defendants and the whole suit of the plaintiff is also based on this fabricated document only. It is contended that the plaintiff through its employees, obtained the signature of the defendants on various documents which includes the blank stamp paper used for fabricating the abovementioned affidavit/undertaking, on the pretext that the plaintiff requires the same for executing the written agreement between the parties as the same was not executed earlier. (ii) All goods were supplied by the plaintiff from Haryana Freight Carrier, Vidhyawati Building, Main G.T. Karnal Road, Kun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uit and does not corroborate statement filed by the plaintiff is also not complete as there are few payments made by the defendants and credit notes issued by the plaintiff himself had not been taken into account and the account statement filed does not depict the accurate amount. 7. As far as the grounds raised by the defendant in the application for territorial jurisdiction is concerned, there is a specific statement made in the para 13 of the plaint which has been reproduced herein below:- "That the agreement interse the parties was arrived at Patel Nagar New Delhi and the amounts were also payable at Delhi. The part payments were made at Delhi. The defendants made balance confirmation of its debt at Delhi and also revalidated the cheques at Delhi. The agreed place of jurisdiction is Delhi. The plaintiffs reside and work for gain at Delhi. The cause of action in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants arose at Delhi. Hence, this Honourable Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit." 8. No arguments were addressed by the defendants while arguing the application for leave to defend. Thus, the contention of the defendants on this gr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fact that the defendants have given the undertaking to the plaintiff dated 13th October, 2010, nor has he denied the signatures of defendant No.2 where the said defendant has acknowledged the debt. The only submission made by the defendants is that the signatures were obtained by the plaintiff on various documents including the stamp paper, therefore, the plaintiff has misused/manipulated the stamp paper. 12. Learned counsel for the defendants has also not denied the fact that for the outstanding amount, five cheques were issued by the defendants which were dishonoured on presentation, due to insufficient funds. In view of the said position, there is a presumption in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants under Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 13. No evidence of any oral agreement or statement can be admitted when the terms of any such contract have been reduced in the form of a document. Thus, the grounds mentioned in the application for leave to defend as defence, it is merely a moonshine defence. The said grounds have no application in law. The present case is clearly covered in guiding principles of (d) and (e) of the judgment of M/s Mechalec E....