Mukesh Sharma vs M/S Faces Cosmetics (India) Pvt. … on 6 August, 2018

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

CM No.31257/2018 (Exemption)

Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

CM stands disposed of.

RFA 628/2018

1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code

of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC ) is filed by the plaintiff in the suit

impugning the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 28.3.2018 by which

RFA NO.628/2018 Page 1 of 3
the trial court has dismissed the suit for recovery of monies filed by

the appellant/plaintiff for a sum of Rs.4,15,755/- along with interest.

2. I need not narrate the facts in detail however, the limited

facts which require attention are that the appellant/plaintiff claims to

have been appointed as a dealer for the cosmetics/goods by respondent

nos. 1 and 2/defendant nos. 1 and 2 under an agreement but which

agreement was kept with the respondent nos. 1 and 2/defendant nos. 1

and 2 and the appellant/plaintiff does not even have copy of the same.

It is further the case of the appellant/plaintiff that the goods in

question were to be sold and routed to the appellant/plaintiff through

the Super-Stockist of respondent nos. 1 and 2/defendant nos. 1 and 2

and who was the respondent no.3/defendant no.3 in the suit. Since the

accessories division was closed down by the respondent

no.3/defendant no.3, consequently the cause of action pleaded in the

plaint is that unsold stocks lying with the appellant/plaintiff should be

taken over either by the respondent nos. 1 and 2/defendant nos. 1 and

2 with whom the appellant/plaintiff had an agreement or the

respondent no.3/defendant no.3 from whom the stocks used to be

purchased by the appellant/plaintiff.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply

*