Evidence affidavit of defendant (DW1) in commercial suit for recovery
0 of 33 blanks filled
IN THE COURT OF Designation of the presiding District Judge, DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL-04), DISTRICT CENTRAL, Court location
C.S. (COMM.) NO. Suit number OF 2021
IN THE MATTER OF:
Plaintiff's name
Through its Proprietor….PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
Defendant's name
Proprietor of M/s Defendant firm's name….DEFENDANT
EVIDENCE BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT OF THE DEFENDANT (DW1)
Affidavit of Defendant's name, S/o Late Father's name, Proprietor of M/s Defendant firm's name, Defendant firm's address, City where the firm is located, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-
1.That I am the Defendant in the present case and, as such, I am conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and competent to swear this Affidavit.
2.I say that the proprietorship firm M/s Defendant firm's name, situated at Defendant firm's address, City where the firm is located, was run by my father, Late Father's name, who was the sole proprietor of the firm and who managed and controlled its day-to-day affairs prior to his demise. My father passed away on Date of father's demise due to Covid-19, and a copy of his death certificate is exhibited as Death certificate exhibit number. The present Defendant was taken by complete shock and surprise upon learning of the present case filed by the Plaintiff on false and frivolous facts, inasmuch as the matter had already been settled between the Plaintiff and my father prior to his demise.
3.I further say that the transactions of grocery goods between the Plaintiff and the Defendant were carried out on a verbal and telephonic basis over many years. On telephonic conversation, goods were supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendant on credit from time to time, and the Defendant credited the amounts to the Plaintiff within a reasonable time after realisation of the grocery sales. The dispute as alleged by the Plaintiff is concocted and an afterthought, raised at a time when the father of the Defendant was severely ill due to Covid-19.
4.I further say that the father of the Defendant, Late Father's name, was solely responsible for the day-to-day business affairs of the firm, and all telephonic business conversations on behalf of the Defendant firm were carried out by him personally. There was no dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant during the entire business tenure. The dispute now raised by the Plaintiff is a concocted and afterthought story designed to secure wrongful gain to himself and to cause wrongful loss to the Defendant, which shall be illustrated by the Defendant in the later paragraphs of the present Affidavit.
5.I further say that the Plaintiff has placed reliance on certain documents, and if this Hon'ble Court carefully examines the invoices dated Date of the disputed invoices, it will be seen that there are two bills of the same date as allegedly fabricated by the Plaintiff, one bearing Bill No. Bill number of the first disputed invoice and the other bearing Bill No. Bill number of the second disputed invoice. In addition, the documents at pages Paperbook pages of the first set of documents of the paperbook are in complete contradiction with the documents mentioned at pages Paperbook pages of the second set of documents, coupled with the fact that there is no acknowledgment of the Defendant in respect of receiving the said quantity of goods as mentioned in the allegedly fabricated invoices. The Defendant squarely submits before this Hon'ble Court that the Defendant did receive goods, but the goods mentioned at pages Paperbook pages of the first set of documents are not what was actually received or sent by the Plaintiff.
6.I further say that the grocery goods supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendant in the month of Month and year of supply of goods to the tune of approximately Approximate value of goods supplied were of inferior quality, a fact which was also known to the Plaintiff, and the price charged by the Plaintiff was highly exaggerated as against the market value, due to the presence of husk and small insects in the goods. The saleable price of the grocery goods in the market was not commensurate with the price charged by the Plaintiff. A few quantities of the said grocery goods were non-consumable by humans owing to spoilage and infestation, and the Defendant 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 for taking back the non-saleable stock. Finally, on telephonic discussion, it was communicated by the Plaintiff to the Defendant that the inferior and sub-standard grocery goods be sold at a lower price and the non-saleable stock be dumped from the godown. After such telephonic discussion, the total price agreed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant pertaining to the supplied goods, on the basis of quality and saleability, was agreed at Agreed full and final settlement amount as a full and final settlement amount, and the father of the Defendant, Father's name, paid the said final consideration amount in three instalments by RTGS of Amount of first RTGS instalment dated Date of first RTGS instalment from account no. Bank account number drawn on Bank name, and Amount of second instalment on Date of second instalment and Amount of third instalment on Date of third instalment from the aforesaid account, thereby paying in total a sum of Total amount paid in settlement, which was the full and final settlement price as mutually discussed and decided between the Parties.
7.I further say that, as per the telephonic conversation, the Defendant had ordered goods of superior quality and the Plaintiff had promised to supply goods of superior quality and charged the price accordingly, but the Plaintiff supplied Percentage of goods of inferior quality of the goods of inferior and sub-standard quality, in which a few quantities were of a spoilt nature. The price charged by the Plaintiff for the goods supplied was highly exaggerated and beyond the market value for the sale of the goods in question, which is the reason for the dispute between the parties.
8.I further say that the Defendant repeatedly requested the Plaintiff to take back the remaining defective goods, but the Plaintiff deliberately kept avoiding the request, citing reasons for not paying proper attention to the causes of spoilage of the rotten goods and the reasons pertaining to the Covid-19 situation. On the instruction of the Plaintiff, the Defendant had to dispose of the said goods, as there was a danger in the warehouse of the rotten goods infecting the other goods, and the Defendant had to suffer considerable damages in terms of money. The Defendant bore the loss and paid an amount of Total amount paid in settlement in three instalments to the Plaintiff, as mutually decided between the Parties.
9.I further say that the Defendant was, in any event, astonished by the fact that the Plaintiff is now taking advantage of the Covid-19 pandemic, the illness of the Defendant's father and the business disruption, and has concocted a story for his own wrongful gain and fabricated a false and frivolous legal notice dated Date of the legal notice issued by the plaintiff against the Defendant, M/s Defendant firm's name.
10.I further say that the captioned proceeding filed by the Plaintiff is not maintainable in the eyes of law. The captioned proceeding is per se malicious and has been filed with oblique and ulterior motives. It is stated that the Plaintiff, in the captioned proceeding, has made false and frivolous allegations against the Defendant, knowing fully well that the said allegations are false and frivolous in nature.
11.I further say that the captioned proceeding initiated against the Defendant is a gross abuse of the process of law. The Plaintiff has initiated the present proceedings to harass the Defendant and to cause colossal loss to the proprietorship firm, at a time when the father of the present Defendant lost his life during the Covid-19 pandemic on Date of father's demise.
12.I hereby state that whatever is stated hereinabove is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:-
Verified at Place of verification on this Day of verification day of Month and year of verification that the contents of paragraphs 1 to 12 of my above evidence affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and nothing has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT