Chandiragh Clinical Laboratories v. Dr. Lal'S Path Labs P. Ltd

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. OCTOBER 04, 2018 'gsr'

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 4th October, 2018. + RFA 817/2005 & CM No.16289/2005 (for stay) CHANDIGARH CLINICAL LABORATORIES ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Irfan Ahmed, Adv. Versus DR. LAL'S PATH LABS P. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Abhishek Swaroop, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. This First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment and decree [dated 13th July, 2005 in Suit No.213/2004 of the Court of Additional District Judge (ADJ), Delhi] allowing the suit filed by the respondent / plaintiff for recovery of Rs.5,51,979.26 paise with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum jointly and severally from the appellant / defendant and its Director Mr. Ravi Khanna, in the sum of Rs.4,83,500/- with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 9% per annum against the appellant / defendant and not against its Director Mr. Ravi Khanna. 2. The appeal came up first before this Court on 21st November, 2005 when, while issuing notice thereof, the operation of the impugned judgment and decree was stayed subject to the appellant / defendant depositing the decretal amount in this Court. Vide order dated 22nd March, 2006, the respondent / plaintiff was permitted to withdraw the decretal amount deposited by the appellant / defendant subject to furnishing surety bond and the trial court record was requisitioned. On 7th August, 2006, the appeal was admitted for hearing. The respondent / plaintiff / decree-holder has withdrawn the decretal amount by furnishing a surety bond in the form of an FDR qua which intimation was ordered to be given to the Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd. and by furnishing an undertaking not to encash the said FDR. On 23rd November, 2009, the appeal was dismissed in default. However, vide subsequent order dated 30th November, 2009, the appeal was restored to its original position. The counsel for the appellant / defendant / judgment- debtor and the counsel for the respondent / plaintiff / decree-holder have been heard and the requisitioned record perused. 3. The respondent / plaintiff / decree-holder instituted the suit, from which this appeal arises, pleading that (i) on request of the appellant / defendant, the respondent / plaintiff, engaged in conducting pathological examinations, agreed to open a sample collection centre at the premises of the appellant / defendant at Chandigarh; (ii) the appellant / defendant used to collect the samples for pathological examinations at Chandigarh and forward the same to the respondent / plaintiff at Delhi and the respondent / plaintiff at Delhi used to conduct the pathological examination and forward the reports to the appellant / defendant at Chandigarh for onward delivery to the patients; (iii) the respondent / plaintiff used to charge a discounted rate to the appellant / defendant; (iv) the respondent / plaintiff, from time to time issued invoices to the appellant / defendant; (v) though the appellant / defendant initially was regular in remitting payments of the said invoices but started delaying the payments inspite of repeated requests and reminders of the respondent / plaintiff; (vi) though the appellant / defendant in part discharge of its liability to the respondent / plaintiff issued cheque dated 10th April, 2002 in the sum of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent / plaintiff but the said cheque was dishonoured on presentation; (vii) as per the statement of account maintained by the respondent / plaintiff in the normal course of business on the basis of invoices raised on the appellant / defendant from time to time, a sum of Rs.4,15,022/- was due from the appellant / defendant as on 31st August, 2003; and, (viii) the appellant / defendant is also liable to pay interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum. 4. The appellant / defendant along with its Director, who was then also a defendant, contested the suit by filing a written statement, pleading on mer