SIKAND STANDLEY ENTERPRISES PVT LTD Vs. RAHUL PARIKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge by means of these Regular First Appeals under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is to the impugned judgment 29th and decree dated November, 2010 whereby the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs was decreed and by which decree appellant/defendant was directed to refund the security deposits of Rs.8,00,000/- and Rs.7,00,000/- along with the interest at 9% per annum simple.

(2.) THE admitted facts are that the appellant/defendant received amounts from the respondents/plaintiffs towards security deposit. Once the contract of distributorship between the parties came to an end, the appellant/defendant was duty-bound to refund the security deposits because admittedly no loss was proved before the Trial Court entitling the appellant/defendant to forfeit the security deposits. Also, the MOU dated 28.8.2004 (sic: 29.8.2004) did not provide any specific and minimum amount of sale which was to be done by the respondents with the appellant's product, and what was expressed in the MOU was only a desire/expectation of the appellant qua the respondents/plaintiffs. THE Trial Court has also noted that the appellant failed to prove as to how the goods which were allegedly ordered by the respondents, but not taken by them, could not be disposed of by the appellant. THEre was no other argument before the Trial Court or this Court seeking forfeiture of the security deposits.

(3.) THE second argument which was raised by counsel for the appellant was that the MOU in question which was relied upon between the parties was the MOU dated 29.8.2004, but since the exhibit mark was put though wrongly, on the MOU dated 17.6.2004, Ex.PW1/3, therefore, the Trial Court in Para 9 could not have relied upon the MOU dated 29.8.2004. I am once again unable to agree with the contention put forth by learned counsel for the appellant inasmuch as simply because there is a clerical/administrative mistake in putting an exhibit mark on a wrong document, would not mean that the correct document is not exhibited. THE appellant itself had relied upon the MOU dated 29.8.2004 in support of his case, and which was the document which was sought to be exhibited as MOU, therefore the Trial Court rightly held that it has treated the MOU dated 29.8.2004 as Ex.PW1/3 instead of MOU dated 17.6.2004 on which the exhibit mark was wrongly put, and which latter MOU was not relied upon by any of the parties.