RSA-3037-2023(O [132] M/s Ess Aa Limited and Gaurav M M/s N.H. C Coram : Present: PANKAJ J [1] [2] of the resp same is tak [3] decree pass [4] the case of purchase th a running from time paid by th outstanding [5] (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT CHANDIGA RSA-3037 Date of De Ess Aar Coating India ted and another versus av Maria, Proprietor, N.H. Chemicals, Ludhiana HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PA Mr. Zorawar Singh Chauahan, **** KAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) Notice of motion. Mr. Arpan Sabharwal, Advoc e respondent and has filed his power is taken on record. Defendant is in second appea e passed by both the Courts below. Plaintiff filed a suit seeking ase of the plaintiff, he deals in industri hase the material, i.e. industrial chemic ning account. Defendants used to ma time to time. As per account, an am by the defendants. Plaintiff acco anding amount along with interest @ Suit was contested by the defen T OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH 3037-2023(O&M) of Decision :25.03.2026 …Appellants ….Respondents PANKAJ JAIN uahan, Advocate for the appellants. dvocate, puts in appearance on beha wer of attorney in Court today. Th appeal, aggrieved of the judgment an king recovery of ₹9,16,000/-. As p ndustrial chemicals. Defendants used chemicals from the plaintiff. There wa to make payments by cheques and cas an amount of ₹ 4,49,192/- needs to b accordingly sought recovery of th est @ 18% per annum. e defendants. 1 n behalf y. The ent and As per used to ere was nd cash ds to be of the RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.04.08 13:28 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-3037-2023(O [6] the defenda a company concern as filed by the 6% per an became du with 6% fu [7] judgment a below erre defendant public limit was thus aforesaid same being been dismi [8] purchase o satisfied an [9] through rec [10] contending incorporate (O&M) Purchase of material is admit efendants have not been properly sued pany incorporated under the Compa ern as pleaded in the plaint. Both th by the plaintiff holding him entitled per annum for the period commencing me due till the filing of the suit and 6% future interest. Mr. Chauhan, counsel for th ment and decree passed by the Court erred in brushing aside a prelim dants which goes to the root of the ic limited company was mentioned as filed against a wrong person. Th said objection by accepting the explan being a typographical error. It is a dismissed. Per contra, counsel for the res hase of material is not in dispute. T fied and the payments stand made. I have heard counsel for the gh records of the case. Though Mr. Chauhan, couns nding that a proprietorship concern ca porated under the Companies Act. admitted. However, it is claimed th sued. Defendant No.1 happens to b ompanies Act and not a proprietorsh Both the Courts below decreed the su ntitled to an amount of ₹4,49,192/- encing from the date when the amou uit and 9% interest pendente lite alon for the appellants, while assailing th Courts below submits that the Cour preliminary objection raised by th f the case. Defendant No.1 which is ed as a proprietorship concern. The su on. The Courts below have ignored explanation given by the plaintiff as th It is a defect on which suit ought hav the respondent-plaintiff submits that th te. That apart, the decree now stand or the parties and have carefully gon counsel for the appellants, is right cern cannot be equated with a compan ct. But at the same time, purchase 2 ed that ns to be etorship the suit - @ amount along ling the Courts by the ich is a he suit ored the as the ht have that the stands lly gone right in ompany chase is RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.04.08 13:28 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-3037-2023(O not dispute defendant defendants wrongly me it is an adm rightly ign typographic [11] present app [12] disposed of 25.03.2026 ‘R. Sharma' (O&M) isputed. That apart, one of the Di dant No.2. Thus even by applying dants cannot escape their liability. E gly mentioned as proprietorship conce an admitted fact that it is defendant wh ly ignored the description in mem graphical error. In view thereof, this Court fi nt appeal. The same is ordered to be All pending miscellaneous ed off. .2026 Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable Directors-Sanjay was arraigned a plying the principle of alter ego, th lity. Even though defendant No.1 wa concern instead of a company but sinc ant who purchased raw material, Cour n memo of parties of the suit as ourt finds no reason to interfere in th to be dismissed. neous application(s), if any, stand (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No 3 gned as , the o.1 was ut since , Courts it as a e in the stands RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.04.08 13:28 I agree to specified portions of this document