Suit For Recovery

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI.
SUIT NO. ____________ OF 2016
(UNDER ORDER XXXVII OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908)
IN THE MATTER OF :STARLIT POWER SYSTEMS LTD.
Through its Authorised Representative/POA,
A-1/20, Basement, Opp. B-4 Block,
Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi - 29.
Plaintif
Versus
Smt. SAMITA SAHARMA
PROP, OF TRIVENI TRADERS,
House NO. 203K,
Delhi Gate, Pashchimi - 1,
Tehsil Shamli, District Prabudh Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh 247776
Defendant
SUMMARY SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 1,87,422/- (RUPEES One
Lakh Eighty seven Thousand four Hundred Twenty Two

Only) ALONG WITH ACCRUED PENDENTE LITE AND FUTURE
INTEREST AT 18% P.A.
Ad- valorem court fees of Rs. 4198.60/- has been affixed
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1.
That the present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff for recovering
its dues from Defendant/s arising from supply of goods on invoices,

written agreement as well as for recovery of suit amount/ amount stated
on dishonoured cheque issued by the defendant/s for discharge of her
lawful liability.
2.
That the Plaintiff company is incorporated under the Companies
Act, 1956, and into the business of recycling, refining, manufacturing,

trade, import & export of Lead based products including recycling old
lead acid batteries, lead scrap. Mr. Kamaljeet Singh Jaswal, Director,
CFO is authorised and competent to inter-alia sign, institute, present and

prosecute the present complaint for and on behalf of the Plaintiff vide
Board Resolution dated 24.12.15.
3.
That
the
Defendant
is
battery
dealer
having
TIN
no.
09673203143C operating in the name and style of M/s Triveni Traders

from Krishna nagar as well as from Saharanpur (b)/ Shamli Sector 2 .
4.
That in June of 2014 Defendant approached the plaintiffs officers
and presented a very rosy about its battery sales/business and requested
the Plaintiffs officers/directors to supply batteries to them. Defendant
represented itself to be responsible organization which honors its
purchase commitments by making timely payments. The defendant filled
up a distributor/dealer appointment form thereby expressly assured the
plaintiff that it would make advance payments promptly or maximum
within 21 days of supply of material by the Plaintiff.
5.
That believing upon the defendants representation the Plaintiffs
officers/ Directors got influenced and acceded to their requests by

agreeing to supply products to her.
6.
That
after
the
aforesaid
undertaking,
the
plaintiff
supplied/delivered goods vide following invoices: Invoice No.s
Date
UP1/2014-15/119
19 Feb 2015
48,838/-
UP1/2014-15/122
20 Feb 2015
74,216/
UP1/2014-15/136
13 Mar 2015
65,629/
7.
Amount
That the defendant never reported any defects in the goods
supplied to her nor returned back any goods.

8.
That initially the Defendant issued regular cheques to inter-alia
show her resolve in making agreed timely payments. Defendant ensured

that her bank honoured her cheques so she could gain confidence of
Plaintiff. Defendant after gauging that Plaintiffs confidence in her had
increased
became
very
casual
in
making
payments/issuing
cheques/encashment of her cheques.

9.
That Defendant in part discharge its liabilities issued a cheque
dated 24th June, 2016 bearing no. 562903 drawn on Punjab & Sind
Bank, Main Panipat Road, Shamli, District Muzaffarnagar, UP for Rupees
1,87,422/ (RUPEES One Lakh Eighty seven Thousand four Hundred
Twenty Two Only) The aforesaid cheque was presented for encashment on
designated day with the plaintiffs bankers i.e. Icici Bank Ltd., having
address as A1/15, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi - 29 . But to the utter
dismay of plaintiffs officers, the aforesaid cheque was dishonoured and
returned to the plaintiff with remarks funds insufficient vide cheque
returning memo dated 29.06.16.
10.
That the officers of the plaintiff repeatedly requested the defendant
to clear her dues however the Defendant did not pay any heed. To get the
aforesaid cheques/invoice dues cleared, the Plaintiffs officers were made
to run from pillar to post as they were forced to follow up for payments
repeatedly and every time Defendant promised to make the entire
payment along with 18% interest within a short period of time. Had
Plaintiff known that Defendant/s had no intentions to make timely
payments/no payments, Plaintiff would not have transacted with
Defendant or accepted the said cheque in discharge of part of her debts
and liabilities towards Plaintiff.
11.
That looking at unethical conduct of the Defendant/s the Plaintiff,
through their lawyer, sent a legal notice dated 12.07.16 to the

Defendant/s thereby calling upon the Defendant/s to clear her dues
within 15 days from the receipt of the said notice. Through the said
notice, the Defendant/s was fore-warned that in the event of their failure
to make the payment of the amount of the dishonored cheque of Rs.
1,87,422/- to the Plaintiff within the stipulated period, the Defendant/s
would commit an offence punishable under Section 138 r/w sec. 141 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 as amended upto date, and in that
case the Plaintiff would be left with no alternative but to file legal
proceedings against the Defendant/s at their costs and risks. The legal
notices posted through registered post have not been received back by the
Plaintiff, and as such it can be presumed to have be served as per section
27 of the General Clauses Act.
12.
That despite due service of aforesaid notice, the defendant
preferred to remain defiant and did not pay her legitimate dues. The
defendant also did not prefer to reply to the aforesaid notice.
13.
That the transactions between the parties are purely commercial in
nature and the nonpayment of dues has caused great losses to the
Plaintiff. The pending dues has blocked Plaintiffs working capital. The
Plaintiff has taken loans for financing its working capital requirements
and has been paying interest on blocked funds. The Plaintiffs officers
have been desperately running from pillar to post to secure their
payments while Defendant has mocked at their desperation. The
Defendant/s are therefore liable to pay its dues along with an agreed
interest thereon @ 18% till the date of actual payment interalia as per
mandate of Section 80 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Therefore,
the plaintiff is entitled to claim accrued, pendent lite and future interest
at the rate of 18% on due amounts w.e.f 21 days of last bill till date of
final payment.
14.
That in addition Defendant/s are liable to pay litigation costs along
with court fee paid by Plaintiff interalia due to the fact that Plaintiff has
been forced to litigate and increase its woes.
15.
That the present suit is within limitation of time as prescribed
under the Limitation Act. The last invoice bearing no. UP1/2014-15/136
for Rs. 65,629/ was issued on dated 13th Mar 2015. The last cheque
bearing no. 562903 drawn on Punjab & Sind Bank, Main Panipa Road,
Shamli, District Muzaffarnagar, UP. For Rs. 1,87,422/ (RUPEES One
Lakh Eighty seven Thousand four Hundred Twenty Two Only) was issued
by the defendant on 24.06.16. The Plaintiff, through their lawyer, sent a
legal notice dated 12.07.16 to the Defendant/s thereby calling upon the
Defendant/s to clear its dues within 15 days from the receipt of the said
notice.
16.
That the cause of action for filing the present suit arose when the
Defendant/s failed to honor the agreement with Plaintiff about paying up

for its purchases immediately or in advance or maximum within 21 days
of purchase. The cause of action for filing the present case arose on every
occasion when the Defendant/s were called upon to pay for their
purchases and they failed to pay. The cause of action for filing the present
suit arose when Defendant in part discharge its liabilities issued a
cheque dated 24.06.16 as already mentioned above. The aforesaid cheque
was presented for encashment on designated day with the plaintiffs
bankers i.e. Icici Bank Ltd., having address as A1/15, Safdarjung
Enclave, New Delhi - 29 and the same was returned to the plaintiff with
remarks funds insufficient vide cheque returning memo dated 29.06.16.
The cause of action arose when despite service of legal notice dated
12.07.16 upon defendant, she failed to act and pay the dues. The cause
of action is continuing as despite vehement requests the Defendant/s
have failed to clear her upto dues i.e. principle with accrued interest.
17.
That the value of the present suit for the purposes of court fees
and jurisdiction has been fixed at Rupees 1,87,422/ (RUPEES One Lakh
Eighty seven Thousand four Hundred Twenty Two Only)
on which ad-
valorem court fees of Rs. 4198.60/-has been affixed. Therefore, this

Honble Court has competent pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this
case.
18.
That this Honble Court has the competent territorial jurisdiction to
entertain and try the present complaint as the Defendant/s had all
meetings with the Plaintiff at New Delhi office of the Defendant, and all
the deals in general and the present transactions in particular for which
the cheque in question was given to the Plaintiff have been finalized in
Delhi office of the Plaintiff/Defendant. The contract with the Defendant/s
in order to supply her the products of the Plaintiff was also finalized in
Delhi. All the cheques were handed over to the Plaintiff by the
Defendant/s at Delhi. The cheque for encashment was also deposited in
Delhi and the information about dishonor of cheque was also received
from Plaintiffs bank at New Delhi. The Legal Notice to the Defendant/s
was sent from Delhi requiring the Defendant/s to make good the payment
to the Plaintiff. Therefore, this Honble Court has the proper jurisdiction
to try the present case. The Defendant/s has placed the order for supply
of goods at Delhi. The entire cause of action in the present complaint has
arisen in Delhi. Therefore, this Honble Court has jurisdiction to try and
adjudicate the present suit.
19.
That as per the knowledge of the Plaintiff, the Defendant/s have no
defense in the present suit.

20.
That no relief which cannot be claimed under order XXXVII of Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been claimed in the instant suit.

PRAYER
In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is most respectfully

prayed that this Honble Court may graciously be pleased to:
a)
Adjudicate the present suit under order XXXVII of Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908;
b)
Pass a decree for a sum of Rs.1,87,422/ (RUPEES One Lakh
Eighty seven Thousand four Hundred Twenty Two Only).
c)
Pass a decree of accrued, pendent lite and future interest @ 18%
p.a. on Rs. 1,87,422/ (RUPEES One Lakh Eighty seven Thousand four
Hundred Twenty Two Only) w.e.f. 03th april, 2015 (21 days from the
invoice date of last consignment i.e. 13th MAR, 2015) till the actual date of
payment in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant/s;
d)
Pass appropriate orders awarding costs/expenses of the
suit in favour of Plaintiff.
e)
Pass any other order/s in favour of Plaintiff and against
Defendant.
PLAINTIFF
THROUGH AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE
New Delhi
Dated:
Through
Jatin Dhawan, Adv
Advocare Partners,
11, Shiv Mandir Marg, Jalvihar Road,
Lajpat Nagar - 2, New Delhi - 24.
Ph: 9810299918/Email:- jatin@advocarepartners.in
VERIFICATION:
th
Verified at Delhi on this
February, 2016 that the contents of
para 1 to 18 of the plaint are true and correct to my knowledge.
And those of para 19 to 20 are true on information and advice
receive and believed to be true. Last para is prayer to this Honble
Court.
PLAINTIFF
IN THE COURT OF SCJ/ASCJ/CJ, SAKET COURTS.

SUIT NO. ____________ OF 2016
STARLIT POWER SYSTEMS LTD.
PLAINTIFF
DEFENDANT
VERSUS
Smt. Samita Sharma
AFFIDAVIT
I, Kamaljeet Singh Jaswal aged about 34 years S/o Late Shri
Paramjit Singh R/o B-10/236, First Floor, Amrit Puri, East of
Kailash, New Delhi - 65, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as
under:
1.
I say that I am the Director/CFO as well as Authorised vide
Board resolution dated 24th December, 2015 to institute the

aforesaid suit and am well conversant with the facts of the present
case and as such I am competent to swear this affidavit.
2.
I say that I have gone through the contents of the
accompanying plaint, which has been drafted by the counsel for the
Plaintiff at my instructions, the contents of the same are correct.
3.
I say that the contents of the accompanying plaint may be
read as part of this affidavit as well, as those are not being repeated
herein for the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition.
4.
I say that this is my true and correct statement.
VERIFICATION:
Verified at New Delhi on this the
DEPONENT
th
day of February, 2016 that
the contents of the aforesaid affidavit are true and correct to my

knowledge and information derived from records maintained in the
usual course of business by the Plaintiff. No part of it is false and

nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT

SUIT NO. ____________ OF 2016
PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
Smt. SAMITA AHARMA
DEFENDANT
LIST OF DOCUMENTS WITH DOCUMENTS
S. NO.
1.
Original
DOCUMENT PARTICULARS
distributor/dealer appointment
PAGE NO.
form
along with self-attested Pan card and Aadhar card

duly
signed
and
stamped
by
the
2.
proprietor/Defendant.
Original office copy of invoices issued to the
3.
defendant
Original cheque for cheque bearing no. 562903
drawn on Punjab & Sind Bank, Main Panipa
Road, Shamli, District Muzaffarnagar, UP. for
Rupees 1,87,422/ (RUPEES One Lakh Eighty
seven Thousand four Hundred Twenty Two Only)
along with the cheque bouncing endorsement
along with the cheque returning memo issued by
plaintiffs bank i.e. Icici Bank Ltd., having address
4.
as A1/15, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi 29

Office copy of legal notice dated 12 July 2016
5.
issued on behalf of plaintiff by the advocate.

True copy of board resolution dated 24 December
6.
2015.
Any other document with the permission of
Honble Court.
PLAINTIFF

New Delhi
Dated:
Through
Jatin Dhawan, Adv
Advocare Partners,

SUIT NO. ____________ OF 2016
PLAINTIFF
DEFENDANT
VERSUS
SMT. SAMITA AHARMA
MEMO OF PARTIES

Plaintif
Versus
SMT. SAMITA AHARMA
PROP, OF TRIVENI TRADERS
House NO. 203K,
Defendant
PLAINTIFF

New Delhi
Dated:
Through
Jatin Dhawan, Adv
Advocare Partners,

SUIT NO. ____________ OF 2016
PLAINTIFF
DEFENDANT
VERSUS
Smt. Samita Sharma
ADDRESS FORM

Plaintif
Versus
Smt. Samita Sharma
PROP . OF Triveni Traders,

House NO. 203K,
Defendant
PLAINTIFF
New Delhi
Dated:
Through
Jatin Dhawan, Adv
Advocare Partners,

SUIT NO. ____________ OF 2016
PLAINTIFF
DEFENDANT
VERSUS
Smt. SAMITA AHARMA
INDEX
S. No.
Particulars
1.
Court fees.
2.
Memo of Parties.
3.
Address Form.
4.
Summary suit for recovery of Rs.

1,87,422/ (RUPEES One Lakh Eighty
seven Thousand four Hundred Twenty
Two Only) along with accrued pendente
lite and future interest at 18% p.a.
5.
List of Documents with Documents.
7.
List of Reliance
8.
Vakalatnama.
Page No.
PLAINTIFF
Through
Place: Delhi.
Dated:
JATIN DHAWAN, ADV
ADVOCARE PARTNERS
11, JALVIHAR ROAD,
LAJPAT NAGAR II,
NEW DELHI 24.
M.No.:- 9810299918
Email:- jatin@advocarepartners.in

SUIT NO. ____________ OF 2016
PLAINTIFF
DEFENDANT
VERSUS
SMT. SAMITA AHARMA
LIST OF RELIANCE
ORIGINAL/ COPIES/ PHOTOCOPIES OF THE FOLLOWING
DOCUMENTS
(1)
Documents relating to the suit and mentioned in the plaint;
(2)
Any other documentary/ oral evidence which may be
necessary to prove the case of the Plaintiff;

(3)
The Plaintiff reserve its right to file other/ additional list of
documents and reliance later, if, found necessary with the

permission of this Honble Court.
PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF
Through
Place: Delhi.
Dated:
JATIN DHAWAN, ADV
ADVOCARE PARTNERS
11, JALVIHAR ROAD,
LAJPAT NAGAR II,
NEW DELHI 24.
M.No.:- 9810299918
NEW DELHI.
SUIT NO. ____________ OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF :-

Plaintif
Versus
Smt. USHA DEVI
W/O BINESH KUMAR
PROP OF RAJ BATTERY
3/540,GURANA ROAD,
WARD NO.5 BADHPAT,
BARAUT, UTTAR PRADESH
PIN CODE - 250611
Defendant
SUMMARY SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 61,099/- (RUPEES SIXTY

ONE THOUSAND AND NINETY NINE Only) ALONG WITH ACCRUED
PENDENTE LITE AND FUTURE INTEREST AT 18% P.A.

1. That the present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff for recovering
written agreement as well as for recovery of suit amount/ amount
stated on dishonoured cheque issued by the defendant/s for
discharge of her lawful liability.
That the Plaintiff company is incorporated under the Companies Act,
1956, and into the business of recycling, refining, manufacturing, trade,
import & export of Lead based products including recycling old lead acid
batteries, lead scrap. Mr. Kamaljeet Singh Jaswal, Director, CFO is
authorised and competent to inter-alia sign, institute, present and
Board Resolution dated 24.12.15.
2.
That
the
Defendant
is
battery
dealer
having
TIN
no.
09378703330C operating in the name and style of M/s Raj Battery

from Saharanpur road as well as from Meerut.
3.
That in June of 2014 Defendant approached the plaintiffs officers
and presented a very rosy about its battery sales/business and requested
the Plaintiffs officers/directors to supply batteries to them. Defendant
represented itself to be responsible organization which honors its
purchase commitments by making timely payments. The defendant filled
up a distributor/dealer appointment form thereby expressly assured the
plaintiff that it would make advance payments promptly or maximum
within 21 days of supply of material by the Plaintiff.
4.

5.
That
after
the
aforesaid
undertaking,
the
plaintiff
Date
UP1/2014-15/130
24 Feb 2015
58,605/-
UP1/2014-15/135
13 MAR 2015
46,659/
6.
Amount

7.

increased
became
very
casual
in
making
payments/issuing

8.
dated 24th June, 2016 bearing no. 384165 drawn on Syndicate Bank, J.V
College, Baraut, 250611 for Rupees 61,099/ (RUPEES Sixty One
Thousand ninety nine Only) The aforesaid cheque was presented for
encashment on designated day with the plaintiffs bankers i.e. Icici Bank
Ltd., having address as A1/15, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi - 29 . But
to the utter dismay of plaintiffs officers, the aforesaid cheque was
dishonoured
and
returned
to
the
plaintiff
with
remarks
funds
insufficient vide cheque returning memo dated 29.06.16.

9.
10.

61,099/- to the Plaintiff within the stipulated period, the Defendant/s
11.
12.
final payment.
13.
14.
under the Limitation Act. The last invoice bearing no. UP1/2014-15/135
for Rs. 46,659/ was issued on dated 13th Mar 2015. The last cheque
bearing no. 384165 drawn on Syndicate Bank. J.V Collage , Baraut 250611 for Rupees 61,099/ (RUPEES Sixty one Thousand and ninety
nine Only) was issued by the defendant on 24.06.16. The Plaintiff,
Defendant/s thereby calling upon the Defendant/s to clear its dues
within 15 days from the receipt of the said notice.
15.

16.
and jurisdiction has been fixed at Rupees 61,099/ (RUPEES Sixty one
Thousand and ninety nine Only) on which ad-valorem court fees of Rs.
2978.40/-has been affixed. Therefore, this Honble Court has competent
pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this case.
17.
18.

19.

PRAYER

(a) Adjudicate the present suit under order XXXVII of Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908;
(b) Pass a decree for a sum of Rs. 61,099/ (RUPEES One Sixty one
Thousand and ninety nine Only
(c) Pass a decree of accrued, pendent lite and future interest @ 18% p.a.
on Rs. 61,099/ (RUPEES One Sixty one Thousand and ninety nine Only
w.e.f. 03th APRIL, 2015 (21 days from the invoice date of last consignment
i.e. 13th MAR, 2015) till the actual date of payment in favour of the
Plaintiff and against the Defendant/s;
(d) Pass appropriate orders awarding costs/expenses of the suit

in favour of Plaintiff.
(e) Pass any other order/s in favour of Plaintiff and against

Defendant.
PLAINTIFF
New Delhi
Dated:
Through
Jatin Dhawan, Adv

Advocare Partners,
VERIFICATION:
th
Court.
PLAINTIFF

SUIT NO. ____________ OF 2016
PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
Smt. USHA DEVI
DEFENDANT
AFFIDAVIT
under:
1.

2.
3.
4.
VERIFICATION:
DEPONENT
th


DEPONENT

SUIT NO. ____________ OF 2016
PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
Smt. USHA DEVI
DEFENDANT
S. NO.
1.
Original
PAGE NO.
form

duly
signed
and
stamped
by
the
2.
3.
defendant
Original cheque for cheque bearing no. 384165
drawn on Syndicate Bank, J.V College, Baraut,
250611 for Rupees 61,099/ (RUPEES Sixty One
Thousand ninety nine Only) along with the cheque
bouncing endorsement along with the cheque
returning memo issued by plaintiffs bank i.e. Icici
Bank Ltd., having address as A1/15, Safdarjung
4.
Enclave, New Delhi 29

5.

6.
2015.
Honble Court.
PLAINTIFF

New Delhi
Dated:
Through
Jatin Dhawan, Adv
Advocare Partners,

SUIT NO. ____________ OF 2016
PLAINTIFF
DEFENDANT
VERSUS
Smt. USHA DEVI
MEMO OF PARTIES

Plaintif
Versus
Smt. USHA DEVI

W/O BINESH KUMAR
PROP OF RAJ BATTERY
3/540,GURANA ROAD,
WARD NO.5 BADHPAT,
PIN CODE 250611
...
ALSO AT:1. Delhi Saharanpur Road

OPP. Katiya Hospital,
Baraut, Uttar Pradesh
250611
2. SHRI Binesh Kumar

Authorised Signatory of Ms. Raj Battery
3/540, Gurana Road,
defendant
Ward No.5 Badhpat,

Baraut , Uttar Pardesh
250611
PLAINTIFF

New Delhi
Dated:
Through
Jatin Dhawan, Adv
Advocare Partners,

SUIT NO. ____________ OF 2016
PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
Smt. USHA DEVI
DEFENDANT
ADDRESS FORM

Plaintif
Versus
Smt. USHA DEVI
W/O BINESH KUMAR
PROP OF RAJ BATTERY
3/540,GURANA ROAD,
WARD NO.5 BADHPAT,
PIN CODE - 250611
Defendant
PLAINTIFF
New Delhi
Dated:
Through
Jatin Dhawan, Adv
Advocare Partners,

SUIT NO. ____________ OF 2016
PLAINTIFF
DEFENDANT
VERSUS
Smt. USHA DEVI
INDEX
S. No.
Particulars
1.
Court fees.
2.
Memo of Parties.
3.
Address Form.
4.
Summary suit for recovery of Rs.

61,099/ (RUPEES Sixty One Thousand
ninety nine Only) along with accrued
pendente lite and future interest at 18%
p.a.
5.
7.
List of Reliance
8.
Vakalatnama.
Page No.
PLAINTIFF
Through
Place: Delhi.
Dated:
JATIN DHAWAN, ADV
ADVOCARE PARTNERS
11, JALVIHAR ROAD,
LAJPAT NAGAR II,
NEW DELHI 24.

M.No.:- 9810299918
PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
Smt. USHA DEVI
DEFENDANT
LIST OF RELIANCE
DOCUMENTS
(1)
(2)

(3)

PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF
Through
Place: Delhi.
Dated:
JATIN DHAWAN, ADV
ADVOCARE PARTNERS
11, JALVIHAR ROAD,
LAJPAT NAGAR II,
NEW DELHI 24.
M.No.:- 9810299918

NEW DELHI.
SUIT NO. ____________ OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF :STARLIT POWER SYSTEMS LTD.
Plaintif
Versus
SADAR BALWINDER SINGH
PROP. OF GURU NANAK HOSPITAL,
G.T ROAD,OPP SAMRALA CHOWK,
KHANNA, PUNJAB - 141401
Defendant
SUMMARY SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 1,92,234/- (RUPEES ONE

LAKH NINETY TWO THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTY FOUR
Only) ALONG WITH ACCRUED PENDENTE LITE AND FUTURE

INTEREST AT 18% P.A.
1. That the present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff for recovering
written agreement as well as for recovery of suit amount/ amount
stated on dishonoured cheque issued by the defendant/s for
discharge of her lawful liability.
That the Plaintiff company is incorporated under the Companies Act,
1956, and into the business of recycling, refining, manufacturing, trade,
import & export of Lead based products including recycling old lead acid
batteries, lead scrap. Mr. Kamaljeet Singh Jaswal, Director, CFO is
authorised and competent to inter-alia sign, institute, present and
Board Resolution dated 24.12.15. .
2. That in June of 2014 Defendant approached the plaintiffs officers
and presented a very rosy about its battery sales/business and
requested the Plaintiffs officers/directors to supply batteries to
them. Defendant represented itself to be responsible organization
which honors its purchase commitments by making timely
payments.
The
defendant
filled
up
distributor/dealer
appointment form thereby expressly assured the plaintiff that it

would make advance payments promptly or maximum within 21
days of supply of material by the Plaintiff.
3.

4.
That
after
the
aforesaid
undertaking,
Date
Amount
PB1/2014-15/0007
7 OCT 2014
69,922/-
PB1/2014-15/0015
29 OCT 2014
56,695/
PB/2014-15/0022
13 FEB 2015
38,212/-
the
plaintiff
5.

6.

increased
became
very
casual
in
making
payments/issuing

7.
dated 24th June, 2016 bearing no. 017207 drawn on ALLAHABAD BANK ,
KHANNA , DIST, LUDIHIANA ( PANJAB ) for Rupees 1,92,234/ (RUPEES
ONE LAKH NINETY TWO THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTY
FOUR Only)) The aforesaid cheque was presented for encashment on
designated day with the plaintiffs bankers i.e. Icici Bank Ltd., having
address as A1/15, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi - 29 . But to the utter
dismay of plaintiffs officers, the aforesaid cheque was dishonoured and
returned to the plaintiff with remarks funds insufficient vide cheque
returning memo dated 29.06.16.
8.
9.

1,92,234/- to the Plaintiff within the stipulated period, the Defendant/s
10.
11.
final payment.
12.
13.
under the Limitation Act. The last invoice bearing no. PB1/201415/0022 for Rs. 38,212./ was issued on dated 13 th FEB 2015. The last
cheque bearing no. 017207 drawn on ALLAHABAD BANK , KHANNA ,
DIST, LUDIHIANA ( PANJAB )
for Rupees 1,92,234/ (RUPEES ONE
Only)) was issued by the defendant on 24.06.16. The Plaintiff, through

their lawyer, sent a legal notice dated 12.07.16 to the Defendant/s
thereby calling upon the Defendant/s to clear its dues within 15 days
from the receipt of the said notice.
14.

15.
and jurisdiction has been fixed at Rupees 1,92,234/ (RUPEES ONE

Only)) on which ad-valorem court fees of Rs. 4247.20/-has been affixed.

Therefore, this Honble Court has competent pecuniary jurisdiction to
entertain this case.
16.
17.

18.

PRAYER

(a) Adjudicate the present suit under order XXXVII of Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908;
(b) Pass a decree for a sum of Rupees 1,92,234/ (RUPEES ONE LAKH
NINETY TWO THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTY FOUR Only))
C. Pass a decree of accrued, pendent lite and future interest @ 18%
p.a. on for Rupees 1,92,234/ (RUPEES ONE LAKH NINETY TWO
THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTY FOUR Only).
w.e.f. 06th
Mar, 2015 (21 days from the invoice date of last consignment i.e. 13 th
Feb, 2015) till the actual date of payment in favour of the Plaintiff and
against the Defendant/s;
(d) Pass appropriate orders awarding costs/expenses of the suit

in favour of Plaintiff.
(e) Pass any other order/s in favour of Plaintiff and against

Defendant.
PLAINTIFF
New Delhi
Dated:
Through
Jatin Dhawan, Adv
Advocare Partners,
VERIFICATION:
th
Court.
PLAINTIFF

SUIT NO. ____________ OF 2016
PLAINTIFF
DEFENDANT
VERSUS
AFFIDAVIT
under:
1.

2.
3.
4.
VERIFICATION:
DEPONENT
th


DEPONENT

SUIT NO. ____________ OF 2016
PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
DEFENDANT
S. NO.
1.
Original
PAGE NO.
form

duly
signed
and
stamped
by
the
2.
3.
defendant
Original cheque for cheque bearing no.
017207
drawn on ALLAHABAD BANK , KHANNA , DIST,

LUDIHIANA ( PANJAB )
for Rupees 1,92,234/
(RUPEES ONE LAKH NINETY TWO THOUSAND

TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTY FOUR Only)along
with the cheque bouncing endorsement along with
the cheque returning memo issued by plaintiffs
bank i.e. Icici Bank Ltd., having address as
4.
A1/15, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi - 29

5.

6.
2015.
Honble Court.
PLAINTIFF
New Delhi
Dated:
Through
Jatin Dhawan, Adv
Advocare Partners,

SUIT NO. ____________ OF 2016
PLAINTIFF
DEFENDANT
VERSUS
MEMO OF PARTIES

Plaintif
Versus

KHANNA, PUNJAB - 141401
,.
Defentant
PLAINTIFF

New Delhi
Dated:
Through
Jatin Dhawan, Adv

Advocare Partners,

SUIT NO. ____________ OF 2016
PLAINTIFF
DEFENDANT
VERSUS
ADDRESS FORM

Plaintif
Versus
KHANNA, PUNJAB 141401
Defendant
PLAINTIFF
New Delhi
Dated:
Through
Jatin Dhawan, Adv
Advocare Partners,

SUIT NO. ____________ OF 2016
PLAINTIFF
DEFENDANT
VERSUS
INDEX
S. No.
Particulars
1.
Court fees.
2.
Memo of Parties.
3.
Address Form.
4.
Summary suit for recovery of Rs

1,92,234/
(RUPEES
ONE
LAKH
NINETY
TWO
THOUSAND
TWO
HUNDRED AND THIRTY FOUR Only)
along with accrued pendente lite and
future interest at 18% p.a.
5.
7.
List of Reliance
8.
Vakalatnama.
Page No.
PLAINTIFF
Through
Place: Delhi.
Dated:
JATIN DHAWAN, ADV

ADVOCARE PARTNERS
11, JALVIHAR ROAD,
LAJPAT NAGAR II,
NEW DELHI 24.

M.No.:- 9810299918

SUIT NO. ____________ OF 2016
PLAINTIFF
DEFENTANT
VERSUS
LIST OF RELIANCE
DOCUMENTS
(1)
(2)

(3)

PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF
Through
Place: Delhi.
Dated:
JATIN DHAWAN, ADV

ADVOCARE PARTNERS
11, JALVIHAR ROAD,
LAJPAT NAGAR II,
NEW DELHI 24.
M.No.:- 9810299918

Suit For Recovery

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Suit For Recovery

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE, SAKET COURTS,

SUMMARY SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 1,87,422/- (RUPEES One

Lakh Eighty seven Thousand four Hundred Twenty Two

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

its dues from Defendant/s arising from supply of goods on invoices,

That the Plaintiff company is incorporated under the Companies

Act, 1956, and into the business of recycling, refining, manufacturing,

CFO is authorised and competent to inter-alia sign, institute, present and

09673203143C operating in the name and style of M/s Triveni Traders

That in June of 2014 Defendant approached the plaintiffs officers

That believing upon the defendants representation the Plaintiffs

officers/ Directors got influenced and acceded to their requests by

supplied/delivered goods vide following invoices: Invoice No.s

That the defendant never reported any defects in the goods

supplied to her nor returned back any goods.

That initially the Defendant issued regular cheques to inter-alia

show her resolve in making agreed timely payments. Defendant ensured

cheques/encashment of her cheques.

That Defendant in part discharge its liabilities issued a cheque

That the officers of the plaintiff repeatedly requested the defendant

That looking at unethical conduct of the Defendant/s the Plaintiff,

through their lawyer, sent a legal notice dated 12.07.16 to the

That despite due service of aforesaid notice, the defendant

That the transactions between the parties are purely commercial in

That in addition Defendant/s are liable to pay litigation costs along

That the present suit is within limitation of time as prescribed

Defendant/s failed to honor the agreement with Plaintiff about paying up

valorem court fees of Rs. 4198.60/-has been affixed. Therefore, this

That this Honble Court has the competent territorial jurisdiction to

That as per the knowledge of the Plaintiff, the Defendant/s have no

defense in the present suit.

That no relief which cannot be claimed under order XXXVII of Code

of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been claimed in the instant suit.

In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is most respectfully

Adjudicate the present suit under order XXXVII of Code of Civil

Pass a decree for a sum of Rs.1,87,422/ (RUPEES One Lakh

Eighty seven Thousand four Hundred Twenty Two Only).

Pass a decree of accrued, pendent lite and future interest @ 18%

Pass appropriate orders awarding costs/expenses of the

suit in favour of Plaintiff.

Pass any other order/s in favour of Plaintiff and against

IN THE COURT OF SCJ/ASCJ/CJ, SAKET COURTS.

STARLIT POWER SYSTEMS LTD.

I say that I am the Director/CFO as well as Authorised vide

Board resolution dated 24th December, 2015 to institute the

I say that I have gone through the contents of the

I say that the contents of the accompanying plaint may be

I say that this is my true and correct statement.

day of February, 2016 that

the contents of the aforesaid affidavit are true and correct to my

usual course of business by the Plaintiff. No part of it is false and

IN THE COURT OF SCJ/ASCJ/CJ, SAKET COURTS.

STARLIT POWER SYSTEMS LTD.

along with self-attested Pan card and Aadhar card

as A1/15, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi 29

issued on behalf of plaintiff by the advocate.

THROUGH AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE

IN THE COURT OF SCJ/ASCJ/CJ, SAKET COURTS.

STARLIT POWER SYSTEMS LTD.

SMT. SAMITA AHARMA

STARLIT POWER SYSTEMS LTD.

THROUGH AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE

IN THE COURT OF SCJ/ASCJ/CJ, SAKET COURTS.