Beware of cheats like Nitin Kohli and his company Furncraft Ltd

While doing business, one come across varieties of people. Few are good who follow ethical practices and few are hard to do business with as they try to influence the deals with their might and power. However, there is a third category as well who appear good from the outside but possess a crook’s brain. They are least interested in doing business and focus only on making quick money through fraudulent practices. And it is this category where cheats like Nitin Kohli belong to.

In case you find it hard to believe this, here are the details of a real legal case against Nitin Kohli and his company. Nitin Kohli hired Mac Decor as his vendor for supplying and installation of Venetian, vertical and decorative blinds/curtains, roller blinds and rod components.

The Mac Decor has been supplying requisite material as per specifications to the defendant and also carrying out the installations of the same, from time to time. The Mac Decor has also been raising necessary invoices/bills in the name of Nitin Kohli’s Furncraft Ltd, which were duly accepted by the Nitin Kohli’s Furncraft Ltd and in the discharge of its liability of said bills. Part payments were also made by the Nitin Kohli’s Furncraft Ltd, the computer-generated invoices/bills have also been maintained. Besides, the Nitin Kohli’s Furncraft Ltd also endorsed acceptance of delivery challans issued by the Mac Decor at the time of handing over of the material over to the Nitin Kohli’s Furncraft Ltd as well as execution of installation work. Mac Decor Limited vs. Furncraft Private Limited The Mac Decor maintains running account/statement of account, in respect of transaction carried between them and part payment tendered has been credited in the said account, the last part payment of Rs. 48,584/­ was made to the Mac Decor on 10.06.2009, which has also been shown in the statement of account. The remaining amount is outstanding and as on 31.03.2010, there was outstanding liability of Rs. 4,02,623/­ which Nitin Kohli’s Furncraft Ltd failed to pay, despite request by the Mac Decor and its assurances turned futile, therefore, the Mac Decor through its Advocate, sent registered / speed post demand notice dated 25.09.2010 and the Nitin Kohli’s Furncraft Ltd had received/acknowledged, the demand notice but no result, that is why the present suit for recovery of Rs. 5,57,000/­ (i.e Rs. 4,02,623/­ + interest Rs. 1,54,377/­)

The summons was sent to the Nitin Kohli’s Furncraft Ltd by speed post and ordinary way, the ordinary summons and registered cover were refused on 12.08.2011 by the Nitin Kohli’s Furncraft Ltd, but information was delivered to him and as per tracking report of speed post, the article/envelope containing summons was delivered to the Nitin Kohli’s Furncraft Ltd on 16.08.2011. However, neither the Nitin Kohli’s Furncraft Ltd appeared nor prosecuted the case, therefore, considering the reports of refusal, which amounts to sufficient service and also of delivery of articles by speed post, it has proceeded ex­-parte on 01.10.2011.

Then, Shri Vinod Bisht, author of the plaint, stepped into the witness box and concluded the Mac Decor’s evidence. Shri Sumit R. Sharma, Advocate for Mac Decor argued finally.
Finally, during the hearings, the court found that the contentions are assessed in the light of the record. Shri Vinod Bisht deposed on the lines of plaint and documents.

The Mac Decor has established that there was a purchase order and Mac Decor supplied the material under retail invoices, there was also installation of material asked for, as per the description and instruction of the Nitin Kohli’s Furncraft Ltd and statement of account consolidate all the transactions carried between the parties and last payment was of Rs. 48,584/­ on 10.06.2009. Therefore, the suit filed on 29.07.2011 is within the prescribed period of limitation. The Mac Decor is entitled to a decree of suit amount. However, the retail invoices prescribe interest @ 24% per annum but Mac Decor claims pendent­lite and future interest @ 18% per annum and the suit has been filed for an outstanding amount of Rs. 4,02,623/­ + interest of Rs. 1,54,377/­ up to date of suit. The principal sum adjudged is Rs. 4,02,623/­ and pendent­lite and future interest @ 18% per annum, would be computed on such principal adjudged sum.

Mac Decor Limited vs. Furncraft Private Limited Accordingly, the Mac Decor’s suit is decreed for Rs. 5,57,000/­, coupled with the cost of suit and interest @ 18% per annum from the date of suit till realization of the amount, in favor of the Mac Decor and against the Nitin Kohli’s Furncraft Ltd, however, the interest would be computed on Rs. 4,02,623/­, the principal adjudged sum.

And that’s how the court found Nitin Kohli guilty of fraud and directed him to pay Mac Decor all the outstanding along with interest. It is, therefore, important to crosscheck each and every person who start your association with. You never know who becomes Nitin Kohli.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *