Delhi District Court
IffcoMc Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. vs Dity Rakshita Seeds Pesticides on 31 March, 2022
CS SCJ 48/21
IFFCOMC CROP SCIENCE PVT. LTD. VS DITY RAKSHITA SEEDS PESTICIDES
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEHA SHARMA, CIVIL JUDGE01 (SOUTH)
SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
Civil Suit No: CS SCJ 48/2021
CNR no. : DLST030000312021
Date of Institution:06.01.2021
Date of Judgment:31.03.2022
IFFCOMC CROP SCIENCE
PRIVATE LIMITED
(Through its authorized representative)
Reg. Ofc. IFFCO Sadan, C1, District Center,
Saket Place, New Delhi110017.
Corp Ofc Surendra Jakhar Bhawan,
TowerB, 3rd Floor, Plot no.3,
Sector32, Gurugram, Haryana122001 ...............PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
DITY RAKSHITA SEEDS PESTICIDES
(Through its proprietorAlli Vidya Sagar)
Address: 1/71/A , Main Road,
R.Kothagudem, Khammam,
Telangana 507140
GST no. 36BASPA4119F1ZV
Mobile No. 9505650449 ..............DEFENDANT
SUMMARY SUIT UNDER ORDER XXXVII FOR RECOVERY OF RS.
1,96,502/ ALONGWITH INTEREST @ 18% PER ANNUM.
Page no. 1 of 6
(Neha Sharma)
CJ01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi
CS SCJ 48/21
IFFCOMC CROP SCIENCE PVT. LTD. VS DITY RAKSHITA SEEDS PESTICIDES
JUDGMENT
1. This is a summary suit for recovery of liquidated sum of Rs. 1,96,502/ along with pendente lite and future interest @ 18% p.a. till the date of realization of the amount.
2. Briefly, it is averred in the plaint that that plaintiff is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and supplying of various agro chemical products. The defendant bought agrochemical goods from the plaintiff company in 201819.
3. Four invoices dated 31.07.2018. 05.11.2018 and 27.06.2019 for an amount of Rs. 1,95,840/, Rs. 1,01,070/, Rs. 1,27,322/ and Rs 17,553/ respectively were issued by the plaintiff company which contained terms and conditions and description of the goods including quantity and rates of the goods. Defendant was obligated to make the payment within the respective credit periods mentioned in the invoices. The defendant duly received the Goods and accepted the same without any demur or objections. Upon defendant's request to make payments, two part payments were made on 27.11.2019 and 09.01.2020 of Rs. 82,848/ and 1,00,000/ respectively totalling to Rs. 1,82,848/ which was adjusted against the amount due and payable against invoice 1.
4. Upon nonpayment, a legal demand notice was issued to the defendant demanding total payment. After a period of seven months from date of issuance, a further part payment of Rs. 1,00,000/ was made which was adjusted against the amount payable against invoice 1 and 2. Consequently, defendant owes an amount of Rs. 1,58,937/ towards invoice no. 2, 3 and 4. Having left with no other option, the present suit has been filed seeking the relief as mentioned in para no. 1 of the judgment.
Page no. 2 of 6 (Neha Sharma) CJ01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 48/21 IFFCOMC CROP SCIENCE PVT. LTD. VS DITY RAKSHITA SEEDS PESTICIDES
5. The defendant on being served with the summons of summary suit, failed to appear before the court or file any memo of appearance within the statutory period of 10 days and therefore, the suit was proceeded u/O XXXVII Rule 2 (3) CPC.
6. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to reproduce Order XXXVII Rule 1 CPC which reads as under:
"Subject to the provisions of subrule (1), the Order applies to the following classes of suits, namely : (a) suits upon bills of exchange, bundles and promissory notes;
(b) suits in which the plaintiff seeks only to recover a debt or liquidated demand in money payable by the defendant, with or without interest arising, (i) on a written contract:
or (ii) on an enactment, where the sum sought to be recovered is a fixed sum of money or in the nature of a debt other than a penalty; or (iii) on a guarantee, where the claim against the principal is in respect of a debt or liquidated demand only."
7. In Ajay Shaw v. HDFC Limited and Ors., the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that "When we look at Order 37 CPC it is seen that the said provision is with respect to filing of the suits either on the basis of a negotiable instrument or a written contract of guarantee or a written contract obliging payment of liquidated amount. Order 37 CPC is antithesis of the ordinary procedure where a defendant can contest a matter as a matter of right. This provision of Order 37 CPC is provided where, from a written document a clearcut Page no. 3 of 6 (Neha Sharma) CJ01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 48/21 IFFCOMC CROP SCIENCE PVT. LTD. VS DITY RAKSHITA SEEDS PESTICIDES obligation of a liquidated amount is shown to be payable to the plaintiff by the defendant and execution of which fact without anything more is the only and the complete cause of action of the Order 37 CPC suit."
8. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Bankay Bihari G. Agrawal vs M/S Bhagwanji Meghihi & Ors. 2001 (2) BomCR 86 has observed that "Before going into the authorities cited, and the manner in which the conflict has arisen, we think that it would be useful to deal with the general principles on which summary procedure has been devised. It is the general experience of Courts, particularly in this country, taking into account the low amount of costs awarded, that the Defendants tend to delay the trial of the suit in the hope of postponing the evil day of decree against them. Consequently, all kinds of defences, good, bad or indifferent, are trotted out to postpone the judgment day. The Legislature was very much conscious of the efforts on the part of dishonest Defendant, without even a semblance of defence, to delay the trial of suit. Hence, departing from the general procedure applicable to all suits, the Legislature thought it fit that in purely commercial matters, or in matters where the claim is admitted or practically indefensible, a summary procedure ought to be made available, so that such suits could be disposed of expeditiously. This is the guiding principle behind Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure."
9. Viewed through the prism of the above said legal position on the Page no. 4 of 6 (Neha Sharma) CJ01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 48/21 IFFCOMC CROP SCIENCE PVT. LTD. VS DITY RAKSHITA SEEDS PESTICIDES subject, the present suit based on invoices was filed under Order XXXVII CPC for recovery of liquidated sum of Rs. 1,96,502/ To prove his case, plaintiff has relied upon the copy of invoices dated 31.07.2018. 05.11.2018 and 27.06.2019 respectively issued in the name of defendant, copy of ledger account of the defendant maintained by the plaintiff company duly supported by a certificate under section 65B Indian Evidence Act, 1872, copy of legal demand notice dated 25.02.2020 and copy of signed and stamped balance confirmation dated 21.10.2020.
10. Summons issued to defendant through whatsapp were received back served on 20.11.2021. Affidavit of service supported by a certificate under section 65B Indian Evidence Act, 1872 filed by the plaintiff shows that dasti summons were also served on defendant through whatsapp on 08.12.2022. However, none appeared on behalf of the defendant despite opportunity being given. No memo of appearance was filed. The Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff has pleaded that the statutory period for entering the appearance has long expired and since no appearance has been filed on behalf of the defendant despite due service of summons under Order 37 CPC, the contents of the plaint should be deemed to be admitted by virtue of Order 37 Rule 2(3) CPC and the plaintiff is entitled to decree under Order 37 CPC.
11. Despite receiving summons in the present suit, the defendant did not appear to dispute the claims of the plaintiff and challenge the above said documents placed on record by the plaintiff. The balance confirmation dated 21.10.2020 is signed and stamped by the defendant. Defendant failed to appear or challenge the signature and stamp upon balance confirmation dated 21.10.2020. In the absence of any reason to disbelieve the averments of plaint and annexed documents in that regard, it is proved that the defendant is liable to pay Rs. 1,96,502/ as principal amount along with interest.
Page no. 5 of 6 (Neha Sharma) CJ01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 48/21 IFFCOMC CROP SCIENCE PVT. LTD. VS DITY RAKSHITA SEEDS PESTICIDES
12. Hence, in view of the above facts, the present suit stands decreed for a sum of Rs. 1,96,502/ alongwith agreed rate of interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of the decree and at the rate of 6% from the date of decree till actual realization as in the opinion of this court interest at the above said rate shall serve the ends of justice.
13. Costs of the suit shall be paid by defendant to the plaintiff as per the rules.
14. Let decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.
15. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Pronounced in open court.
Dated: 31.03.2022 (Neha Sharma) CJ01, Saket Courts, South Delhi Note : This judgment contains six pages and all the pages have been checked and signed by me.
(Neha Sharma) CJ01, Saket Courts, South Delhi Page no. 6 of 6 (Neha Sharma) CJ01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi