Evidence affidavit of defendant (DW-1) in commercial recovery suit
0 of 23 blanks filled
IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT), DISTRICT District name, Court complex name COURTS, DELHI.
C. SUIT (COMM.) NO. Commercial suit number OF 20Year of suit filing (last two digits).
IN THE MATTER OF :-
M/S. Plaintiff company name: PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
Defendant's trade name: DEFENDANT
EVIDENCE BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT OF THE DEFENDANT (DW-1)
Affidavit of Sh. Deponent's name, Proprietor of M/s. Defendant's trade name, having its office at Defendant's office address, Delhi-1100PIN code (last two digits), do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1.That I am the Proprietor of the Defendant in the above-mentioned suit and am thoroughly conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case on the basis of the information and records available with me, and am therefore competent to swear this affidavit.
2.That the Deponent has a strong case in his favour, and the suit of the Plaintiff is liable to be dismissed on the ground that it is founded on false and frivolous facts and documents and is barred by limitation, inasmuch as the present suit was filed in Year of suit filing whereas the last transaction between the parties took place in the month of Month and year of last transaction between the parties, as is admitted by the Plaintiff in the plaint itself. Hence, the present suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
3.That the Plaintiff has not annexed any certificate or bank stamp over the statements of account maintained by it, and as such the said statements are forged and fabricated documents; no evidence has been placed on record to prove the authenticity of the documents filed by the Plaintiff.
4.That the Plaintiff has placed on record certain documents, namely bills/invoices and consignment notes. Upon careful examination by the Deponent, the said documents were found to be illegible and handwritten, and they appear to be tampered with or forged. There is no signature or stamp of the Deponent on the said documents, which shows that the Deponent never acknowledged the said invoices/consignment notes. Further, there is no acknowledgement by the Deponent of having received the material or goods mentioned in the fabricated invoice. The Deponent respectfully submits before this Hon'ble Court that the Deponent did receive goods worth Rs. Value of goods actually received by the Deponent, but the goods valued at Rs. Value of goods claimed by the Plaintiff and the bills/invoices in respect thereof do not correspond to what was actually received or sent by the Plaintiff.
5.That the material supplied by the Plaintiff to the Deponent in Month and year of supply of material was of inferior quality, a fact which was also known to the Plaintiff. The price charged by the Plaintiff was highly exaggerated as compared to the market value. The Deponent requested the Plaintiff to take back the said goods, but the Plaintiff raised difficulties pertaining to the inferior quality and spoilage of the goods and the return freight incurred in taking back the goods.
6.That the Deponent had ordered goods from the Plaintiff worth Rs. Value of goods actually ordered by the Deponent, which amount was duly paid by the Deponent, as is admitted by the Plaintiff in the plaint. However, in order to cheat the Deponent, the Plaintiff created a false and fabricated invoice of Rs. Value of the fabricated invoice against the said order and approached this Hon'ble Court for wrongful gain. The value of the said material was higher than the market value, and the exaggerated amount claimed is sham, fictitious, bogus and imaginary. By such legally impermissible conduct, the Plaintiff cannot claim to have suffered anything which may be for commercial purposes.
7.That the Deponent repeatedly requested the Plaintiff to take back the remaining defective goods, but the Plaintiff deliberately kept avoiding the request and failed to pay proper attention to the causes relating to the inferior quality of the goods. On account of this, the Deponent suffered considerable damages in terms of monetary loss.
8.That the suit of the Plaintiff is not maintainable, inasmuch as the claim put forth by the Plaintiff seeking recovery of an alleged amount is without any legal, binding and subsisting cause of action. The Plaintiff is not entitled to any equitable relief from this Hon'ble Court and is guilty of conduct whereby it has suppressed material facts from this Hon'ble Court; thus there is no swing of equity which can be claimed by the Plaintiff as a matter of right or otherwise.
9.That the falsity of the Plaintiff's claim for recovery of Rs. Amount claimed in the suit in the present suit is writ large from the fact that the Plaintiff had sent a legal notice to the Deponent through its counsel in which a different amount was claimed. This clearly shows that the Plaintiff has not maintained any books of account, and through the present suit the Plaintiff is twisting the true facts.
10.That by failing to disclose material facts, the Plaintiff has rendered itself liable to have this suit rejected at the very inception so as to avoid the rigours of litigation. Further, the present suit, as framed and filed, is a gross abuse and misuse of the process of law and the legal machinery, and has been filed with the sole intention of harassing the Deponent.
11.That the captioned proceedings instituted by the Plaintiff project a scenario which is not only disturbing but also has the potentiality to create a stir, compelling one to ponder in a perturbed state how some unprincipled and deviant persons can ingeniously and innovatively design, in a nonchalant manner, to knock at the doors of the courts as if the courts were a laboratory where multifarious experiments can take place, and how such skillful persons can adroitly abuse the process of the courts at their own will and desire, by painting a canvas of agony through assiduous assertions made in the pleadings, while the real intention is to harass the opposite party without any remote remorse, the inventive design being primarily to harass the said Deponent.
12.That this Hon'ble Court has no territorial jurisdiction over the present suit, inasmuch as the Plaintiff has invoked jurisdiction wrongly by relying upon a rent agreement executed on Date of execution of the rent agreement for a period of Duration of the rent agreement, i.e. till Expiry date of the rent agreement, and the said agreement stood expired on Expiry date of the rent agreement, whereas the Plaintiff has filed the present suit in the year Year of suit filing. This clearly shows that the Plaintiff is making a mockery of law by filing a false case against the Deponent.
13.That the Deponent has always made payment of the amounts due, and the Deponent has cleared all outstanding dues towards the goods supplied to the Deponent by the Plaintiff. The Deponent further states that the present suit is barred by limitation, having been filed after the expiry of the statutory period of limitation of three years.
14.That whatever is stated hereinabove is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION :-
Verified at Delhi on this Date of verification day of Month of verification, 20Year of verification (last two digits), that the contents of paragraphs 1 to 14 of my above evidence affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT