Himalayan Gold Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. Smt. Indera Dogra & Ors.

plaintiff and against the defendants; (b) To, pass a decree by awarding apposite damages as to the cost of the suit and other rational reparation.”

#2. According the plaintiff, which is a Company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, it, inter alia, was engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL). Its manufacturing Unit was situated at Nalagarh, Kirpalpur in District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. Defendant No. 1 is stated to be the proprietor of M/s Aradhna Wines. According to the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 was granted licence in the form L-1 for wholesale and retail vend of Foreign Liquor to trade only in District Una, Himachal Pradesh. Defendant No. 2 is stated to be a Company incorporated under the Companies Act and it owned liquor brands, which were allowed to be manufactured by the plaintiff under the manufacturing agreement, to be sold in wholesale and retail to the licence holders. Officer’s Choice Whiskey was one of the most reputed brands of IMFL, owned by defendant No. 2. Further, as per the plaintiff, the recovery being prayed for by it was duly admitted, acknowledged and confessed by the defendant No. 1 by issuance of Cheques/Negotiable Instruments of the equivalent amount and it is averred in the plaint that as the suit was based 3 ( 2025:HHC:43685 ) upon the business transactions between the merchants/traders, i.e., the plaintiff and defendants, the suit was falling within the ambit of Section 26, Order XXXVII, Rule 1(2)(a) and 1(2)(b)(i) and (ii), read with Order VII, Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Chapter IX & XX of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh Original Side Rules and Orders 2018.

#3. It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff made regular supplies to defendant No. 1 of the alcoholic products as per the demand of said defendant and permit submitted by the said defendant and in each supply, invoices were raised by the plaintiff in the name of the defendant and Tax Invoice contained various details and particulars, such as name of the vendee, quantity and the material supplied, viz., the brand name of IMFL, price of the goods, tax levied etc. The claim in the suit is stated to have arisen out of the invoices raised during the period starting from 25.12.2015 till

10.05.2016. According to the plaintiff, it extended the credit facility to the supplies made to defendant No. 1 and it was maintaining Ledger Accounts in the name of the Aradhana Wines in the usual course of business. As per the Ledger Accounts, an amount of Rs.1,67,00,000/- was due and outstanding from defendant No. 1 in the year 2017. The outstanding amount was repeatedly brought to the notice of the defendants, however, the same still remained outstanding. Defendant No. 1, in part discharge of aforementioned liability, issued and delivered the plaintiff 4 ( 2025:HHC:43685 ) Cheques totaling an amount of Rs.1,15,00,000/- and the cheques delivered were apparently for the ultimate benefit of defendant No. 2. Details of the Cheques delivered, which are mentioned in Para-14 of the plaint read as under:- Sr. No. Cheque No. & Date Drawer Bank Amount (Rs.)

#13. 184448 18.07.2017 083977 18.07.2017 248227 18.07.2017 083925 18.07.2017 083926 18.07.2017 083927 18.07.2017 083686 18.07.2017 083779 18.07.2017 083803 18.07.2017 083804 18.07.2017 083805 18.07.2017 083806 18.07.2017 083613 18.07.2017 State Bank of Patiala, Nangal Road, Distt. Una State Bank of Patiala, Una, HP State Bank of Patiala, Una, HP State Bank of Patiala, Nangal Road, Distt. Una. State Bank of Patiala Nangal Road, Distt. Una State Bank of Patiala, Nangal Road, Distt. Una State Bank of Patiala, Nangal Road, Distt. Una State Bank of Patiala, Nangal Road, Distt. Una State Bank of Patiala, Nangal Road, Distt. Una State Bank of Patiala, Nangal Road, Distt. Una State Bank of Patiala, Nangal Road, Distt. Una State Bank of Patiala, Nangal Road, Distt. Una State Bank of Patiala, Nangal Road, Distt. 10,00,000/- 10,00,000/- 5,00,000/- 10,00,000/- 5,00,000/- 5,00,000/- 5,00,000/- 5,00,000/- 10,00,000/- 10,00,000/- 5,00,000/- 5,00,000/- 10,00,000/- 5 ( 2025:HHC:43685 )

#15. 083684 18.07.2017 083685 18.07.2017 Una State Bank of Patiala, Nangal Road, Distt. Una State Bank of Patiala, Nangal Road, Distt. Una 10,00,000/- 10,00,000/- Total Amounting to Rupees 1,15,00,000/- It is further the case of the plaintiff that it presented the aforesaid Cheques for encashment with its bankers, however, all the cheques were returned with the remark “Refer to Drawer”. The plaintiff got intimation of the cheques being returned on or about 10.10.2017. The cheques were issued to pay the legitimate dues of the plaintiff.

#4. According to the plaintiff, the intentions of defendant No. 1 had changed, and to cheat and defraud the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 has got the cheques returned unpaid. Further, as per the plaintiff, it made enquiries and learnt that defendant No. 1 adopted similar modus operandi to cheat and defraud various other liquor manufacturers also. Further, as per the plaintiff, it issued Legal Notices on 01.11.2017, calling upon the defendant No. 1 and also her husband, who had issued the cheques under his signature to discharge the remaining debt of the plaintiff, which were also dishonoured on presentation. Defendant No. 1 was called upon to pay the cheque amount or face legal consequences. As the defendant No. 1 failed to comply with the notices, hence the suit. 6 ( 2025:HHC:43685 )

#5. According to the plaintiff, the cause of action arose in the year 2015 when defendant No. 1 approached the plaintiff to purchase the alcoholic beverages manufactured by the plaintiff and owned by defendant No. 2 on regular basis and it also arose on each date when supplies were made by the plaintiff to defendant No. 1 against Tax Invoices. The cause of action again arose on

18.07.2017, when the defendant No. 1 issued cheques in favour of the plaintiff in part payment of the outstanding dues of the plaintiff and also when the cheques were dishonoured on their presentation and intimation was received by the plaintiff. Cause of action again arose on 01.11.2017 when legal notices were issued to defendant No. 1. It is also mentioned in the plaint that the suit was within limitation in terms of the averments made in Paras-21 to 23 of the plaint.

#6. During the pendency of the suit, an application, i.e., OMP No. 315 of 2022 was filed by defendant No. 1 under Order XXXVII, Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, to permit her to enter appearance in the proceedings. Said application was disposed of by this Court in the following terms:- “OMP No. 315 of 2022 By way of this application filed by applicant/ defendant No. 1 under Order XXXVII, Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, a prayer has been made by the applicant/ defendant No. 1 to permit her to enter appearance in the proceedings. In terms of the 7 ( 2025:HHC:43685 ) averments made in the application, the applicant did not receive any summons from the Court in Form No. 4 in Appendix B, through the process of the Court with regard to the suit for recovery filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXVII, Rules and 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is further averred in the application that the applicant came to know of the said case when “the Counsel, who has been looking after the matters of her fatherin-law and her husband, was searching the status of matter of Sh. Anil Kumar Dogra and Sh. Mehar Chand Dogra and during search, the Counsel came to know about the pendency of the present suit and he in turn, informed one of sons of defendant No. 1, who in turn, informed defendant No. 1 Smt. Indera Dogra, and thereafter, defendant No. 1 contacted him to engage him as a Counsel in the present suit”. It is on the strength of these averments made in the application that the applicant prays that she be allowed to enter appearance in the lis. Reply to the application has been filed. Averments made in the application are denied in the reply. In terms of the averments made in the preliminary objections taken in the reply, it stands stated that notice in Form 4 Appendix B was duly issued by Registrar General of this Court after steps were taken in this regard by the plaintiff and report of service of the defendant was ‘un-served for want of correct address as the defendant was stated to have shifted from the address given’, which as per the non applicant was a clever move on the part of defendant No. 1 to evade the service. It is further averred in the reply that in these circumstances as the defendant was 8 ( 2025:HHC:43685 ) evading the service, an application was filed under Order 5, Rule 20 of the CPC, praying for substituted service of the defendant, i.e. OMP No. 394 of 2021, which was allowed on 02.09.2021. Thereafter, substituted service was effected upon the defendant by way of publication of notice in two widely circulated newspapers, namely ‘Amar Ujala’ and ‘The Hindu’. Learned Counsel for the non-applicant submitted that notices were published the newspapers on

22.01.2022 for 09.03.2022. On this date also, no appearance was put in on behalf of defendant No. 1 and accordingly, said defendant was proceeded against ex parte. It is further averred in the reply that in terms of the record, power of attorney was filed on behalf of defendant No.1 by her Counsel on

31.03.2022, which demonstrates that the defendant was having the knowledge of pendency of the lis, yet, as per the mandatory requirement of Order XXXVII, Rules 1, 2 and 3 of the COPC, no application/ notice or leave to defend was filed within the mandatory period of 10 days. On these grounds, the non-applicant seeks dismissal of the application. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the averments made in the application as well as the reply. In terms of the contents of the application, part whereof has already been quoted by me hereinabove, the applicant wants the Court to believe that she came to know about the factum of pendency of this lis in the course of a search being made by a Counsel engaged by her father-in-law and her 9 ( 2025:HHC:43685 ) husband regarding their cases. She wants the Court to believe that in the course of said search, counsel came to know about the pendency of the present suit etc. Said facts are extremely hard to digest. The averments, as stand made in the application, are difficult to believe. Though, learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that he personally knew the family and it is on this count that he, though by default, came to know about the pendency of the lis and informed the applicant/defendant No.1 about the lis, however, this is also extremely difficult to believe for the reason that if the chronology of the events is seen, then it is obvious that it was only after the publication of the notice in the month of January, 2022 for 09.03.2022 that the power of attorney was filed on 31.03.2022 on behalf of defendant No. 1. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding the applicant has not approached the Court with clean hands and the facts as they stand narrated in the application are concocted and a story has been cooked up by the applicant so as to make out a case under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. The cause title of this case is Himalayan Gold Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Indera Dogra and another. The name of the father-in-law of the applicant is stated to be Sh. Mehar Chand Dogra and the name of husband of the applicant is stated to be Sh. Anil Kumar Dogra. It is not understood as to how while searching the cases filed by or against Sh. Mehar Chand Dogra and Sh. Anil Kumar Dogra, learned counsel for the applicant by default stumbled upon the pendency of this litigation. These days, in 10 ( 2025:HHC:43685 ) terms of the Search Engine which is there on the Website of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, the cases can be searched either from the name of the parties or from the case number thereof. It is not as if a manual search is to be conducted by someone to search for a case, as was earlier. Therefore also, the story, as is mentioned in the application apparently is a false one. Accordingly, as this Court is not convinced with the story as it stands narrated in the application by the applicant, the application is dismissed. COMS No. 08 of 2021 List before Additional Registrar (Judicial) for further action.

#7. Thereafter, when the case was listed before the Additional Registrar (Judicial) on 22.09.2025, the following order was passed:- “Defendants No. 1 and 2 were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 09.03.2022. On an application filed by defendant No. 1 ex parte order against her was recalled on 27.12.2024, however, application filed under Order XXXVII, Rule 3(1) of CPC was dismissed vide order dated 18.06.2025. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff today submitted that since defendants were not granted leave to defend the suit, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment forthwith. He prays that the present Civil Suit may be listed before the Hon’ble Court in view of the provision contained in Rule 3(6) of Order 37, CPC. As prayed for, list the present Civil Suit before the Hon’ble Court appropriate orders.” 11 ( 2025:HHC:43685 )

#8. Having heard learned counsel for the plaintiff, in the light of the fact that defendant No. 1 has not been granted leave to defend the suit, this suit is decreed for recovery of Rs.1,67,67,827/- alongwith interest due till the filing of the suit and also pendente lite and future interest @18% per annum in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, with costs. Registry is directed to prepare the decree-sheet accordingly. Pending Miscellaneous application, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge December 15, 2025 (bhupender)