Delhi District Court
Intec Infonet Private Limited vs Scs Tech India Private Limited on 31 August, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. LAL SINGH,
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT-01),
SOUTH-EAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS (Comm) No. 787/2022
In the matter of:
M/s. Intec Infonet Pvt. Ltd.,
Having its office at:
701, Manjusha Building,
57, Nehru Place,
New Delhi - 110019. ............Plaintiff
Versus
SCS Tech India Pvt. Ltd.,
(Formerly known as SCS Pvt. Ltd.)
101, First Floor, Patel Chambers,
13-Matthew Road, Opera House,
Girgaon, Mumbai
Maharashtra - 400004.
Email- [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected] .........Defendant
Date of institution : 08.08.2022
Date of reserving judgment : 20.08.2024
Date of judgment : 31.08.2024
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of Rs.30,29,600/- (Rupees Thirty Lakh Twenty Nine Thousand Six Hundred only) alongwith interest.
2. It is stated that the plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of Information CS (Comm) No. 787/2022 M/s. Intec Infonet Pvt. Ltd. Vs. SCS Tech India Pvt. Ltd. Page 1 of 27 Technology and Communications since 1991 and enjoys a reputation of being the leading company in providing IT solutions and related services. It is also stated that the defendant is a registered company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, which provides end-to-end technology integration services and business solutions to the public and private sectors.
3. It is stated that in the normal course of business, the plaintiff used to provide to the defendant several IT solutions and related services and enjoy a long standing business relationship based on trust and good faith. It is averred that the defendant approached the plaintiff for rendering integration and implementation services of IT related equipments at Directorate of Information Technology, Maharashtra State Data Centre (MSDC) and defendant placed a purchase order dated 14.08.2019 (having purchase order no. WOHO201908000002 having total purchase value in the sum of Rs.94,40,000/-). As per the terms and conditions of the above mentioned purchase order, the services were to be rendered for the equipments installed at the Directorate of Information Technology, MSDC, 4 th Floor, New Administrative Building, Mantralaya Mumbai-400032. It is averred that the plaintiff provided the services according to the terms and conditions of the purchase order for a sum of Rs.94,40,000/-. The particulars of all the invoices raised alongwith payments received by the plaintiff and the corresponding outstanding amount are as under:
Invoice Details Date Invoice Amount Balance
Amount Received Payment
DEL/S/19-20/000455 17.12.2019 18,88,000/- 15,39,840/- 3,48,160/-
DEL/S/19-20/000456 17.12.2019 15,10,400/ 10,27,072/- 4,83,238/-
DEL/S/19-20/000457 17.12.2019 15,10,400/- 10,27,072/- 4,83,238/-
DEL/S/19-20/000458 17.12.2019 15,10,400/- 10,27,072/- 4,83,238/-
CS (Comm) No. 787/2022
M/s. Intec Infonet Pvt. Ltd. Vs. SCS Tech India Pvt. Ltd. Page 2 of 27
DEL/S/19-20/000459 17.12.2019 15,10,400/- 10,03,936/- 5,05,464/-
DEL/S/19-20/000537 13.01.2020 15,10,400/- 7,85,408.00 7,24,992/-
Closing Balance 64,10,400/- ----
Balance Due --- 30,29,600/-
Total Balance 94,40,000/-
4. It is further averred that the plaintiff completed the scope of work under the Purchase Order within the stipulated time. It is also stated that the services so provided by the plaintiff were duly received and accepted by the defendant and no demur or objection whatsoever was raised by the defendant in respect of the services so provided. As per the plaintiff, a percentage of payment had to be made by the defendant after implementation of work, which was subsequently completed by the plaintiff within the stipulated time period but the defendant failed to make the payment. Thus, after rendering of services for the equipments installed to Directorate of Information Technology, MSDC, the defendant was under an obligation and liable to pay the entire amount against the aforementioned invoices. The outstanding liability towards principal which is due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff is in the sum of Rs.30,29,600/- and the defendant has not made the said outstanding payment to the plaintiff. The plaintiff vide email dated 14.11.2019 requested the defendant to release the payment but no payment was released by the defendant. The plaintiff vide separate emails dated 17.12.2019 and 24.12.2019 requested the defendant to release the payment for Phase 1 & 2. Thereafter, another reminder was sent by the plaintiff to the defendant vide email dated 26.12.2019 to release the payment. As per the plaintiff, time and again plaintiff requested the defendant to release the payment for the services provided by the plaintiff and the plaintiff sent reminders to the defendant vide CS (Comm) No. 787/2022 M/s. Intec Infonet Pvt. Ltd. Vs. SCS Tech India Pvt. Ltd. Page 3 of 27 emails dated 03.01.2020, 06.01.2020, 07.01.2020 and 08.01.2020 which was responded to by the defendant vide email dated 08.01.2020, wherein the defendant intimated to the plaintiff that the payment is on approval stage from the operation team. Further the plaintiff vide separate email dated 08.01.2020 requested the defendant to release the payment of all phases i.e. Rs.79,26,600/- (Seventy Nine Lakh Twenty Six Thousand Six Hundred only).
5. It is also averred by the plaintiff that the plaintiff sent 24 reminders to the defendant between the period of 13.01.2020 to 21.05.2020 to update on payment status but no reply was received from the defendant. Further, the plaintiff issued another reminder vide email dated 26.05.2020 which was responded to by the defendant vide email dated 26.06.2020, wherein defendant intimated to the plaintiff that they will look into the pending payments. Further, the plaintiff vide emails dated 19.06.2020 and 26.06.2020 again requested the defendant to release the pending payment, which was responded by the defendant vide email dated 26.06.2020 but no payment was released by the defendant. A reminder was again sent by the plaintiff on 15.07.2020 which was responded by the defendant vide email dated 01.08.2020, wherein they informed to the plaintiff that they will look into the pending payment. Further, the plaintiff vide email dated 28.08.2020 requested the defendant to release the pending payment. However, the defendant failed to make any payment towards the outstanding liability. It is stated that the defendant on one pretext or the other, avoided the plaintiff's requests and failed and neglected to make payments towards the outstanding liability. Thereafter, the plaintiff served the defendant with a legal notice dated 02.04.2021, thereby called upon the defendant to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.30,29,600/- alongwith interest @ 24% with effect from the respective due dates till the date of realization. In response to the said legal notice, the CS (Comm) No. 787/2022 M/s. Intec Infonet Pvt. Ltd. Vs. SCS Tech India Pvt. Ltd. Page 4 of 27 defendant vide email dated 05.05.2021 sent a reply to the counsel of the plaintiff, wherein they did not dispute to the payments to be made to the plaintiff and erroneously stated that the plaintiff did not render services to the defendant as per the time frame. It is stated that no demur or objection was raised by the defendant at any point of time before the legal notice was issued. As such the plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendant for recovery of Rs.30,29,600/- alongwith interest @24% per annum w.e.f when the said amount was due and payable as well as pendente lite and future interest.
6. The defendant has been duly served and the defendant has filed the written statement. In the written statement, defendant contended that the present suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendant and also contended that suit is barred by limitation. It is also contended by the defendant that no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Courts of Delhi or specifically within the jurisdiction of this court and hence, the instant suit is barred by the law of territorial jurisdiction. It is also contended by the defendant that the plaint is silent on the part when was the work completed by the plaintiff. It is further contended that the plaintiff failed to complete the work assigned to it within stipulated time and the defendant had to make arrangements with other party and further request them to complete the work left incomplete by the plaintiff and the defendant had incurred additional expenses also due to plaintiff's irresponsible approach and lackadaisical work done by the plaintif. Defendant in its written statement also submitted that in the year 2019, defendant was awarded a tender, floated by the State of Maharashtra for the purpose of a Project for rendering of integration and implementation services of IT related equipment at Directorate of Information Technology, CS (Comm) No. 787/2022 M/s. Intec Infonet Pvt. Ltd. Vs. SCS Tech India Pvt. Ltd. Page 5 of 27 Maharashtra State Data Center, Mumbai. It is stated that Symantec (OEM - Original Equipment Manufacturers) was to provide for rendering of integration and implementation services of IT. On Symantec's recommendation, plaintiff was appointed to provide for equipment and support services. The "Symantec Software Solutions Private Limited" (OEM) was rendering integration and implementation services of IT related equipment and had accordingly executed agreement with the plaintiff for supply of equipment. It is also contended that 'Symantec' is the main party in the instant dispute as it has performed more than 90% of the work. It is further contended by the defendant that "Symantec" is a proper party in the instant case as Symantec has performed most part of the work (majority solution of the entire project was performed by Symantec) in implementation and the suit is liable to be dismissed on the principle that a proper party not being impleaded. Defendant also contended that the payment was to be made on a scheduled basis, for which plaintiff did not perform its duties properly and deliver the project within stipulated time. It is stated that the plaintiff and defendant agreed upon the terms of payment and thereafter, a purchase order dated 14.08.2019 was issued by the defendant. It is also contended by the defendant that the work was to be completed in Phase wise manner within 4-5 weeks after issuance of the Purchase Order dated 14.08.2019. The requirement was of assistance in deploying Symantec Products in which plaintiff (Intec) was to provide resources to perform such various, mutually agreeable Services for End user. The Phases were:
PHASE 1 Planning & Assessment
PHASE 2 Extended Technical Design Session
PHASE 3 Core CASB Deployment
PHASE 4 Cloud Application API Secure let Deployment
CS (Comm) No. 787/2022
M/s. Intec Infonet Pvt. Ltd. Vs. SCS Tech India Pvt. Ltd. Page 6 of 27
PHASE 5 Documentation
PHASE 6 Enable Cloud Service Connector REST Detector
7. It is also contended that the timeline was amended to 6-7 weeks and were agreed upon vide email dated 19.08.2019. Defendant also contented that due to the incomplete work performed by the plaintiff, there were coordination problems with Symantec and as no timely updates on the timeline were provided for. Several times the deficiency was communicated to the plaintiff and a detailed emails specifying the deficiencies was communicated vide email dated 17.09.2019. It is further stated that Symantec was providing support for products as per standard terms for a duration of 36 months. It is further contended by the defendant that a timeline was provided on 01.10.2019 (7th+Week) vide email dated 01.10.2019 which clearly shows that the scope of work as per the agreed terms was not implemented within the stipulated time. The plaintiff ought to have completed the scope of work within 6-7 weeks of the issuance of the purchase order, however, the plaintiff failed to complete the work within stipulated time and even after January, 2020 there were certain pending tasks to be completed by the plaintiff. Defendant further contended that due to the deficiencies committed by the plaintiff and plaintiff's failure to deliver the project within time, the issues of payment arose. The plaintiff failed to perform its work diligently post Phase 3 and the issues became out of hand during and after Phase 6 which was the final Phase. As per the defendant, several issues/ complaints were raised by the Maharashtra government to the defendant with regard to intranet issue etc, which was then communicated to the OEM (Symantec). Further, on-site team failed to be punctual at site which lead to further cost escalation and delay in implementation time frame. It is further submitted that the plaintiff has been CS (Comm) No. 787/2022 M/s. Intec Infonet Pvt. Ltd. Vs. SCS Tech India Pvt. Ltd. Page 7 of 27 paid about Rs.64,10,400/- and the defendant has made each payments on time. Defendant also contended that the plaintiff has failed to execute its duties and perform its role as defined in the 'scope of work'. The payment has been made to the plaintiff in Phase wise manner, however, the plaintiff's failure to complete the work and leaving the project in between has left defendant no other choice but to make arrangements with other party and further request them to complete the work left incomplete by the plaintiff. The defendant also contended that the plaintiff has failed to place anything on record to establish its allegation that the defendant has defaulted in making payments due. The defendant also contended that the averment of the plaintiff are misleading and the plaintiff has through misrepresentation/suppression of material fact tried to subvert the process of justice. On reply on merits also, defendant denied the contentions of the plaintiff.
8. The plaintiff has also filed replication to the written statement of defendant wherein the plaintiff has denied the contentions of the defendant and reiterated the averments as made in the plaint.
9. After completion of the pleadings, vide order dated 16.01.2024, following issues were framed:
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.30,29,600/-
from the defendant? (OPP) (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest and if so, at what rate and for which period? (OPP) (3) Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present suit? (OPD) (4) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation? (OPD) (5) Whether the suit is not maintainable for non joinder of proper and necessary parties? (OPD) CS (Comm) No. 787/2022 M/s. Intec Infonet Pvt. Ltd. Vs. SCS Tech India Pvt. Ltd. Page 8 of 27 (6) Relief.
10. Thereafter, plaintiff led the P.E and examined Sh. Shekhar Agarwal, Manager (Finance & Accounts) / AR of the plaintiff as PW-1, who has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex.PW1/A. PW1 also relied upon the following documents:-
Sr. Exhibits /
Documents
No. Marks
01 Copy of the Board Resolution dated 16.04.2021. Ex.PW1/1 Purchase Order dated 14.08.2019 bearing No. Ex.P1 02 WOHO201908000002 having total purchase value of Rs.94,40,000/- .
Copy of Invoices raised upon the defendant by the Ex.PW1/2 03 plaintiff. (colly) Ex.PW1/3 04 Email exchanged between the plaintiff and the defendant.
(colly) 05 Office copy of Legal Notice dated 02.04.2021. Ex.PW1/4 Reply dated 05.05.2021 of the defendant to the legal notice Ex.P2 06 of the plaintiff.
07 Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. Ex.PW1/5
11. PW1 was cross examined by ld counsel for the defendant. In his cross examination, PW1 deposed that the services were provided by the plaintiff company to the defendant in the month of August 2019 onwards when they received the order. The date of purchase order is 14.08.2019. He further deposed that as per the purchase order, the scope of work was designing, implementation and support to Symantec Equipments. PW1 admitted that the CS (Comm) No. 787/2022 M/s. Intec Infonet Pvt. Ltd. Vs. SCS Tech India Pvt. Ltd. Page 9 of 27 scope of work has been defined in the purchase order dated 14.08.2019. PW1 also admitted that there was a timeline for completion of work. PW1 after going through Purchase Order dated 14.08.2019 stated that the time frame of implementation of the project was within 6-7 weeks maximum. He also admitted that the plaintiff has received the payments for work in a phased manner and the project was executed in Mumbai (Maharashtra). He stated that the manpower was deployed by the plaintiff for the project in Mumbai (Maharashtra) and no goods were supplied to the defendant by the plaintiff. PW1 also deposed that there were no goods supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant but only services were rendered to the defendant by the plaintiff. PW1 further deposed that the issue / dispute had arisen at the final phase of work. PW1 deposed that the amount of Rs.64,10,400/- has been received by the plaintiff. Further, PW1 deposed that the implementation of work was to execute the Symantec Equipments. He also stated that the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant was about One year at the time of purchase order and the work was completed in January 2020. However, PW1 also deposed that he does not recollect the exact date of the completion of work.
12. Thereafter, defendant had led the defence evidence and examined Sh. Jatin Maru (AR of defendant) as DW1, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex.DW1/A. DW1 also relied upon the following documents:
Sr. Documents Exhibits /
No. Marks
01 True copy of the Board Resolution. Ex.DW1/1
02 Print out of the email dated 14.08.2019. Ex.DW1/2
CS (Comm) No. 787/2022
M/s. Intec Infonet Pvt. Ltd. Vs. SCS Tech India Pvt. Ltd. Page 10 of 27
03 Copy of purchase order dated 14.08.2019. Ex.DW1/3
Print out of SCS Pvt. Ltd.: Symantec Implementation
04 Ex.DW1/4
Solution document by the plaintiff.
05 Print out of the email dated 19.08.2019. Ex.DW1/5
Print out of the email dated 17.09.2019 by the
06 Ex.DW1/6
defendant.
Copy of communication / letter dated 21.09.2019 by
07 Mark - A
Symantec.
08 Print out of the email dated 01.10.2019. Ex.DW1/7
Ex.DW1/8
09 Print out of the email dated 03.01.2020 and 08.01.2020.
(colly)
10 Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. Ex.DW1/9
13. DW1 was cross examined by ld counsel for the plaintiff. In his cross examination, DW1 admitted that the invoices were raised by the plaintiff in the sum of Rs.94,40,000/- approximately. DW1 deposed that he cannot recollect whether the invoices as Ex.PW1/2 were received by the defendant. DW1 admitted that the affidavit of admission/denial was signed by him. DW1 also admitted that he had admitted the invoices Ex.PW1/2 in his affidavit of admission / denial. However, he stated that whatever invoices were raised in Ex.PW1/2 were not accepted.
DW1 also admitted that defendant had paid Rs.64,10,000/- to the plaintiff towards the services rendered. He stated that the defendant had raised multiple objections upon the receipt of the invoices by way of multiple emails and letters. DW1 also admitted that defendant has not placed any alleged letter or email, wherein objection qua any of the invoice was raised, upon CS (Comm) No. 787/2022 M/s. Intec Infonet Pvt. Ltd. Vs. SCS Tech India Pvt. Ltd. Page 11 of 27 receipt of the same. However he stated that there were multiple calls, meetings regarding the invoices raised which were not accepted due to work not completed and unnecessary delays. DW1 also stated that to the best of his knowledge, email dated 08.01.2020 was marked to the plaintiff at its email ID i.e. [email protected]. However, to a specific question put by the plaintiff, DW1 admitted that the email ID i.e. [email protected] does not pertain to the plaintiff as the name of the defendant is Intec Infonet and not Meta Infotech. DW1 shown his ignorance that the email ID of the plaintiff bear the domain name i.e. @intecinfonet.com. DW1 also admitted that the plaintiff rendered services to the defendant even after 17.09.2019. He stated but the same were not completed. DW1 also stated that he does not recollect if the defendant objected to any of the terms contained in the invoice raised by the plaintiff by way of an email or letter. DW1 also stated that any email or letter mentioning the objection of the defendant to the terms contained in the invoices, is not on record. DW1 denied to the suggestion that there were no conference calls and meeting regarding the invoices raised by the plaintiff. DW1 deposed that the defendant has not placed any documents on record showing the objection raised by the defendant in respect of the delayed service rendered by the plaintiff between December 2019 and January 2020 to the plaintiff. He stated that however, the defendant has raised objections regarding the same with Symantec. DW1 also deposed that he does not recollect if the defendant has raised any written objection with the plaintiff regarding delayed service rendered by the plaintiff. DW1 further stated to a specific question put to him that the defendant did not write any email or letter to the plaintiff alleging that the plaintiff has not completed the work which was awarded to the plaintiff by the defendant. However, he stated that it was not required as the time lines were also mentioned there in the purchase CS (Comm) No. 787/2022 M/s. Intec Infonet Pvt. Ltd. Vs. SCS Tech India Pvt. Ltd. Page 12 of 27 order and the emails. DW1 admitted that the last invoice raised upon the defendant by the plaintiff was on 13.01.2020. He also stated that though the invoice was raised on 13.01.2020 by the plaintiff but the plaintiff has not placed anything on record to show that the plaintiff has completed the work and taken any sign off regarding the completion of work against which the invoice was raised. DW1 admitted that defendant had paid Rs.7,85,408/- to the plaintiff against the invoice dated 13.01.2020. DW1 also admitted that the amounts of the invoices and corresponding payments as shown in Para 8 of the plaint are correct.
14. Arguments heard.
15. Sh. Rahul Malhotra, ld counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the purchase order was issued by the defendant on 14.08.2019 to the plaintiff vide Ex.P1. He further submitted that against the purchase order, the plaintiff has rendered services of Rs.94,40,000/- and qua which the outstanding balance amount of Rs.30,29,600/- is payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. He also argued that the services were provided by the plaintiff from September 2019 to January 2020. He argued that the purchase order Ex.P1 was placed upon the plaintiff by the defendant at its office at Nehru Place and part payments were made by the defendant at the office of the plaintiff. Further, invoices Ex.PW1/2 were raised by the plaintiff from its Nehru Place office and the invoices also stipulate that dispute if any, will be subject to the seller court jurisdiction i.e. this court having jurisdiction over Nehru Place, New Delhi. He submitted that defendant never objected to the terms of invoices. He also argued that though the defendant contended that Symantec ought to have been impleaded as it is a proper party, however, no evidence to this effect has been led by the defendant. He further submitted that the privity of contract was between the plaintiff and defendant as evident from purchase order Ex.P1 and CS (Comm) No. 787/2022 M/s. Intec Infonet Pvt. Ltd. Vs. SCS Tech India Pvt. Ltd. Page 13 of 27 invoices and Symantec has no role whatsoever. He also submitted that the suit is well within the period of limitation. He submitted that the time was never the essence. He also submitted that the defendant has accepted the services rendered by the plaintiff even in January 2020 and no objection whatsoever were raised by the defendant. He also argued that the time of execution was extended by the defendant itself vide email dated 01.10.2019.
16. On the other hand, Sh. Aakash Nandolia, ld counsel for the defendant submitted that the dispute arose when the plaintiff failed to complete the work within stipulated time, which ought to have been completed within 6-7 weeks of the issuance of purchase order. He further submitted that the total value of the purchase over was Rs.94,40,000/- and the plaintiff has admittedly received an amount of Rs.64,10,400/-. He also argued that after seven weeks, the plaintiff had only completed till Phase 3 of the project, the entire project was delayed, there was lack of coordination and professionalism on the part of the plaintiff. He also argued that the plaintiff has not completed the remaining phase of project and hence plaintiff is not entitled to any amount. He further submitted that plaintiff has failed to show that the work / task as per the purchase order has been completed. He also argued that in the absence of 'Symantec' as a party to the suit, an effective decree cannot be passed as 'Symantec' has performed majority solution of the entire project in implementation with support of plaintiff's services and thus it is a necessary and proper party. He further submitted that the present suit is also barred by limitation. Ld counsel for the defendant also submitted that this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit.
17. I have considered the above submissions of ld counsels for the parties and perused the file and also gone through the evidence on record.
18. My issue wise findings are as under:
CS (Comm) No. 787/2022 M/s. Intec Infonet Pvt. Ltd. Vs. SCS Tech India Pvt. Ltd. Page 14 of 27Firstly I shall deal with Issue no.3.
Issue No.3: Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present suit? (OPD) The onus to prove this issue is upon the defendant. The defendant has contended in the written statement that no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the courts of Delhi or specifically within the jurisdiction of this court. It is also contended by the defendant that defendant's registered office address is in Mumbai and the entire customer project executed in Mumbai and further all the project documents were also executed in Mumbai only. It is further submitted by the defendant that the office of the defendant company is in Mumbai and the services were provided in Mumbai, Maharashtra only. It is further contended by the defendant that in the instant suit, no cause of action is disclosed within the jurisdiction of this court and therefore, this court has no territorial to adjudicate the present suit. However, the plaintiff in its replication denied the contention of the defendant that no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of courts of Delhi or specifically within the jurisdiction of this court. In the plaint, the plaintiff averred that the purchase order was placed upon the plaintiff at its office at Nehru Place and hence the contract was made at Nehru Place. Plaintiff also averred that the part payment were received by the plaintiff at its office at Nehru Place and further, Clause 3 of the terms and conditions of the invoices states that in case of dispute, jurisdiction will lie in those courts where the office of seller is situated. It is also averred by the plaintiff that hence the cause of action or part thereof falls within the jurisdiction of this court. In the written statement, however defendant denied the contention of the plaintiff that this court has jurisdiction to entertain the present suit as already mentioned above. However, regarding part payment as stated to be received CS (Comm) No. 787/2022 M/s. Intec Infonet Pvt. Ltd. Vs. SCS Tech India Pvt. Ltd. Page 15 of 27 by the plaintiff at its Nehru Place office, the defendant has not specifically denied the same in its written statement. Moreover, perusal of purchase order Ex.P1 (defendant also relied purchase order as Ex.DW1/3) shows that the said purchase order dated 14.08.2019 was addressed to the plaintiff at its Delhi address i.e. [Intec-110019] Intec Infonet Private Limited, 701, Manjusha Building, 57, Nehru Place, New Delhi. Thus, there is no force in the contention of the defendant that this court has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present suit. The purchase order was placed at the abovesaid Nehru Place address of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has raised the invoices Ex.PW1/2 (colly) from Nehru Place office of the plaintiff and the receiving of invoices have been admitted by the defendant. Moreover, in the plaint, the plaintiff averred that the part payments have been received in Nehru Place office of the plaintiff. Though the plaintiff has not placed on record the bank details regarding receiving of payment at Delhi, particularly within the jurisdiction of this court, however, during the course of argument, ld counsel for the defendant has also not rebutted the contention of the ld counsel for the plaintiff that the part payments were received by the plaintiff at Nehru Place, within the jurisdiction of this court. Otherwise also, as mentioned above, the purchase order was placed upon the plaintiff by the defendant at Nehru Place address of the plaintiff and hence, part cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. Thus, this court has territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present suit.
Accordingly, the issue no.3 is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
19. Issue No.4: Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation? OPD The onus to prove this issue is upon the defendant. In the written statement, defendant contended that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by CS (Comm) No. 787/2022 M/s. Intec Infonet Pvt. Ltd. Vs. SCS Tech India Pvt. Ltd. Page 16 of 27 limitation. It is also contended in the written statement that the cause of action for the claim, if any, had arisen on 02.10.2019 when the stipulated time for completion of work expired and as such, the claim is grossly delayed and barred by limitation. However, in the plaint, plaintiff averred that the present suit has been filed within the period of limitation. Moreover, the plaintiff in its replication denied the said contention of the defendant that suit is barred by limitation. It is contended by the plaintiff in the replication that the services were rendered by the plaintiff in December 2019-January 2020 and accordingly, the invoices were raised on 17.12.2019 and 13.01.2020. It is also contended by the plaintiff that in terms of purchase order dated 14.08.2019, the payments were to be remitted by way of PDCs of 25 days from the date of services rendered / invoices raised and therefore, the cause of action to file the present suit arose when the services were rendered on respective dates and the payments were not made in terms of purchase order. It is further contended by the plaintiff that at the best, the cause of action to file the present suit arose on 17.12.2019 on which date the first invoices were raised. It is the contention of the plaintiff that even if the limitation period is calculated from 17.12.2019, the present suit is within limitation period.
Perusal of file shows that the defendant has placed the purchase order Ex.P1 on 14.08.2019 upon the plaintiff. As per the purchase order Ex.P1, the payments were to be made in the phase manner and time frame of implementation of the project was within 6-7 weeks. Further, the plaintiff has raised invoices dated 17.12.2019 and invoice dated 13.01.2020 vide Ex.PW1/2 (colly). Certain part payments of Rs.64,10,400/- also admittedly received by the plaintiff from the defendant in respect of the above invoices. The plaintiff has filed the pre-institution mediation application on 14.09.2021 and non-starter report was given on 08.12.2021 and this period is required to CS (Comm) No. 787/2022 M/s. Intec Infonet Pvt. Ltd. Vs. SCS Tech India Pvt. Ltd. Page 17 of 27 be excluded for the purpose of limitation. The plaintiff has filed the present suit on 08.08.2022, within limitation period. Otherwise also, the plaintiff is also entitled to the extension clause for the purpose of limitation, for the period 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, during the Covid-19 Pandemic period, in terms of order dated 10.01.2022 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020. As such, the plaintiff has filed the present suit well within the limitation period.
Accordingly, the issue no.4 is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
20. Issue No.5: Whether the suit is not maintainable for non joinder of proper and necessary parties? (OPD) The onus to prove this issue is also upon the defendant. In the written statement, it is the contention of the defendant that in the year 2019, the defendant was awarded a tender, floated by the State of Maharashtra for the purpose of a project for rendering integration and implementation services of IT related equipments at Directorate of Information Technology, Maharashtra State Data Centre, Mumbai. Defendant also submitted that 'Symantec' (OEM- Original Equipment Manufacturers) was to provide for rendering of integration and implementation services of IT. It is also the contention of the defendant that on Symantec's recommendation, the plaintiff was appointed to provide for equipment and support services. It is further contended that the "Symantec Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd.", (OEM) was rendering integration and implementation services of IT related equipments and had accordingly executed agreement with the plaintiff for supply of equipment. It is further contended by defendant that 'Symantec' is the main party in the instant dispute as it has performed more than 90% of the work. Thus, the defendant had contended that the 'Symantec' is a proper party in the instant case as CS (Comm) No. 787/2022 M/s. Intec Infonet Pvt. Ltd. Vs. SCS Tech India Pvt. Ltd. Page 18 of 27 'Symantec' has performed most part of the work in implementation and hence the present suit is liable to be dismissed on the principle that a proper party not being impleaded. However, the plaintiff in its replication contended that defendant had approached the plaintiff and thereafter placed the purchase order dated 14.08.2019 upon the plaintiff. It is also contended by the plaintiff that 'Symantec' had no role whatsoever so far as purchase order of the plaintiff is concerned. It is further submitted by the plaintiff that it is matter of fact that the 'Symantec' was carrying out works at the site for the defendant in the capacity of OEM. However, the services rendered by the plaintiff had nothing to do with the other works being carried out at the site. It is also the contention of the plaintiff that the limited scope of work awarded to the plaintiff was to do the integration work for the equipment supplied by the other vendor(s). It is also the contention of the plaintiff that the plaintiff had no role whatsoever after the integration work / services were rendered by it including but limited to after sale services, maintenance etc. The plaintiff denied that the 'Symantec' is the main party in the present dispute.
Perusal of purchase order Ex.P1 shows that the purchase order was placed upon the plaintiff by the defendant. As such, as per purchase order dated 14.08.2019, the contract was between the plaintiff and the defendant for certain specific services as mentioned in the purchase order Ex.P1. The purchase order Ex.P1 was placed by the defendant to the plaintiff for the total amount of Rs.94,40,000/-. The plaintiff has raised the invoices Ex.PW1/2 (colly) against the defendant for the total sum of Rs.94,40,000/-. The part payment of Rs.64,10,400/- was admittedly received by the plaintiff from the defendant. Thus, it clearly shows that there was no contract between the plaintiff and the 'Symantec'. Moreover, the part payments were also made to the plaintiff by the defendant in terms of purchase order Ex.P1 and CS (Comm) No. 787/2022 M/s. Intec Infonet Pvt. Ltd. Vs. SCS Tech India Pvt. Ltd. Page 19 of 27 invoices Ex.PW1/2 (colly). For the services rendered by the plaintiff, there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and 'Symantec'. Otherwise also, the defendant has failed to place on record anything material to show that there was also a contract between the plaintiff and 'Symantec'. As such, there is no force in the contention of the defendant that the 'Symantec' is a proper and necessary party in the present suit. As mentioned above the purchase order Ex.P1 was placed upon the plaintiff by the defendant and the plaintiff was to provide the services in terms of the purchase order. Hence, there is force in the contention of the plaintiff that 'Symantec' has no role in the present dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant. Thus, the 'Symantec' is not a proper and necessary party in the present suit.
Accordingly, the issue no.5 is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
21. Issue No.1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.30,29,600/- from the defendant? (OPP) The onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff. So as to prove its case, the plaintiff has examined PW1 Shekhar Agarwal, who has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and also relied upon the documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/5 and documents Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant had approached the plaintiff for rendering integration and implementation services of IT related equipments at Directorate of Information Technology, Maharashtra State Data Centre (MSDC), Mumbai. Accordingly, the defendant had placed a purchase order dated 14.08.2019 Ex.P1, having total purchase value in the sum of Rs.94,40,000/-. Further, as per terms and conditions of purchase order, the services were to be rendered for the equipments installed at the Directorate of Information Technology, MSDC, 4th Floor, New Administrative Building, Mantralaya Mumbai-400032.
CS (Comm) No. 787/2022 M/s. Intec Infonet Pvt. Ltd. Vs. SCS Tech India Pvt. Ltd. Page 20 of 27As per the plaintiff, the plaintiff provided the services according to the terms and conditions of the purchase order for a sum of Rs.94,40,000/- and accordingly raised the invoices Ex.PW1/2 (colly). Plaintiff has averred that the plaintiff completed the scope of the work under purchase order within the stipulated time and the services so provided by the plaintiff were duly received and accepted by the defendant and no demur or objection whatsoever was raised by the defendant in respect of the services so provided. As per the plaintiff, the percentage of payment had to be made by the defendant after implementation of work, which was subsequently completed by the plaintiff within stipulated time period but the defendant failed to make full payment. The plaintiff averred that out of total value of purchase order amounting to Rs.94,40,000/-, plaintiff has received only Rs.64,10,400/- and balance outstanding principle liability of Rs.30,29,600/- is due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. The abovesaid part payment of Rs.64,10,400/- to the plaintiff by the defendant is admitted by both the parties. Now the present dispute is regarding the balance principle amount of Rs.30,29,600/-. The defendant contended that the plaintiff failed to complete the work assigned to it within stipulated time and the defendant had to make arrangement with other party and further request them to complete the work left incomplete by the plaintiff. However, the defendant has not disclosed the name of other party from whom the defendant had made arrangements regarding completion of work in respect of the work allegedly left incomplete by the plaintiff. In the entire plaint as well as in the evidence also, the defendant had not disclosed the name of such other party with whom the defendant had made arrangement for completion of work allegedly left incomplete by the plaintiff. It is also the contention of the defendant that the work was to be completed in phase-wise within 4-5 weeks after issuance of purchase order dated 14.08.2019. Ld CS (Comm) No. 787/2022 M/s. Intec Infonet Pvt. Ltd. Vs. SCS Tech India Pvt. Ltd. Page 21 of 27 counsel for the defendant also argued that the time was essence as the work assigned to the plaintiff ought to have been completed within 6-7 weeks from issuance of purchase order. However, ld counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the time was never the essence, as the defendant accepted the services rendered by the plaintiff even in January 2020 and no objection whatsoever was raised by the defendant. It is contended by the plaintiff that the time of execution was extended by the defendant itself vide email dated 01.10.2019, Ex. DW1/7. As per purchase order dated 14.08.2019 Ex. P1, the time frame of execution of the project was within 6-7 weeks. Defendant has placed on record an email dated 17.09.2019 Ex.DW1/6. In cross examination, DW1 denied that email dated 17.09.2019 Ex.DW1/6 does not allege that the works were left incomplete by the plaintiff. However, DW1 in his cross examination admitted that the plaintiff rendered the services to the defendant even after 17.09.2019. DW1 also admitted that the plaintiff has rendered the services between December 2019 and January 2020. DW1 also stated that the defendant has not placed any documents on record showing the objection raised by the defendant in respect of the delayed services rendered by the plaintiff between December 2019 - January 2020 to the plaintiff. DW1 also deposed that he does not recollect if the defendant has raised any written objection with the plaintiff regarding delayed service rendered by the plaintiff. In his cross examination, to a specific question put to DW1, he deposed that he did not write any email or letter to the plaintiff alleging that the plaintiff has not completed the work which was awarded to the plaintiff by the defendant. DW1 stated that it was not required as timelines were also mentioned in purchase order. DW1 also admitted that last invoice raised upon the defendant by the plaintiff was on 13.01.2020 and defendant had paid Rs.7,85,408/- to the plaintiff against the invoice dated 13.01.2020. As such, it CS (Comm) No. 787/2022 M/s. Intec Infonet Pvt. Ltd. Vs. SCS Tech India Pvt. Ltd. Page 22 of 27 shows that the plaintiff had rendered the services to the defendant in the month of December 2019 - January 2020. Moreover, the defendant has also released part payment of Rs.7,85,408/- to the plaintiff against invoice dated 13.01.2020, which shows that the defendant has accepted the delayed services if any, of the plaintiff and the defendant has also made part payments of the same. If the time was essence for the work assigned to the plaintiff then the defendant should not have accepted the delayed services of the plaintiff. Rather the defendant had not only accepted the services rendered by the plaintiff in the month of December 2019 and January 2020 but also made part payments for the same.
22. Vide purchase order dated 14.08.2019, the defendant placed the purchase order to the plaintiff for a total work value of Rs.94,40,000/-. It is admitted case that out of the said amount of Rs.94,40,000/-, the defendant had paid a sum of Rs.64,10,400/- to the plaintiff. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for the remaining balance amount of Rs.30,29,600/-. It is the contention of the defendant that the plaintiff has not completed the assigned work within stipulated time and defendant had to make arrangement with other party for completion of work, left incomplete by the plaintiff. This contention has also taken by DW1 in his affidavit Ex.DW1/A at Para 19, however, in cross examination DW1 stated that he has not placed any document on record in support of his statement in Para 19 of the affidavit Ex.DW1/A. It is already observed above that the defendant has not mentioned the name of other party in the plaint as well as in the evidence of DW1, with whom the defendant made arrangement for completion of the work allegedly left incomplete by the plaintiff. Moreover, in the cross examination of DW1 stated that he had not written any email or letter to the plaintiff alleging that plaintiff has not completed the awarded work. The CS (Comm) No. 787/2022 M/s. Intec Infonet Pvt. Ltd. Vs. SCS Tech India Pvt. Ltd. Page 23 of 27 defendant has not placed on record any document or letter written by the defendant to the plaintiff stating that the plaintiff has not completed the work assigned to it by the defendant. Thus, there is no force in the contention of the defendant that the plaintiff has not completed the assigned work. The plaintiff has raised the invoices dated 17.12.2019 and invoice dated 13.01.2020, Ex.PW1/2 (colly) and the defendant has not raised any specific objection regarding the said invoices in reply dated 05.05.2021 Ex.P2 to the legal notice dated 02.04.2021 of the plaintiff. Further, in the reply dated 05.05.2021 Ex.P2, though the defendant alleged delay in rendering the services by the plaintiff but nowhere defendant stated that plaintiff has not completed the work assigned to the plaintiff. As such, the defendant has also failed to show that the plaintiff has not completed the work assigned to the plaintiff. Moreover, in the affidavit of admission / denial of document of the defendant, the defendant has admitted the receipt of acknowledgment of invoices raised by the plaintiff, however the defendant denied the content of the same. In cross examination also, DW1 admitted that in his affidavit of admission / denial he admitted the invoices Ex.PW1/2. However, he also stated that whatever invoices were raised in Ex.PW1/2 were not accepted. DW1 also categorically admitted that the defendant has not placed any alleged letter or email raising the objection qua any of the invoices. The defendant further deposed that there were multiple conference calls and meetings regarding the invoices raised. However, defendant has not placed any material on record showing that multiple meetings or conferences regarding invoices raised by the plaintiff, were taken place. In the instant case, the defendant has also not placed on record any letter or documents showing objection if any, raised by the defendant regarding the invoices of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also placed on record emails exchanged between the plaintiff and defendant vide CS (Comm) No. 787/2022 M/s. Intec Infonet Pvt. Ltd. Vs. SCS Tech India Pvt. Ltd. Page 24 of 27 Ex.PW1/3 (colly). On 26.06.2020 and 15.07.2020, Sh. Mohit of Intec Infonet Pvt. Ltd., has sent the emails to Sh. Jatin Maru (DW1) on the email Id i.e. [email protected] stating therein that "I hope your office has started again and you will be working as before. It would be much appreciated if you release our long time pending payments".
Further, in the email dated 01.08.2020 of DW1 (Jatin Maru) written to Mohit of Intec Infonet Pvt. Ltd., it is categorically mentioned that "'we appreciate your support extended till date, once lock-down eases and we are in state of normalcy we will look into pending payments. Kindly bear with us".
Thus, from the above emails exchanged between the parties, it is amply clear that the defendant has never raised any objection regarding the invoices as raised by the plaintiff upon the defendant. Rather DW1 on behalf of the defendant categorically stated in the above email dated 01.08.2020 that they appreciate the support extended by the plaintiff and once the lock-down eases and they are in the state of normalcy, they will look into pending payments. Thus, in view of the above circumstances, it is admitted fact that the purchase order Ex. P1 was of work value of Rs.94,40,000/- and out of the said work value, the defendant has paid Rs.64,10,400/- to the plaintiff. The remaining amount of Rs.30,29,600/- as balance amount has been claimed by the plaintiff in the instant suit. The invoices Ex.PW1/2 as raised by the plaintiff upon the defendant is received and acknowledged by the defendant as stated by DW1 in his cross examination as well as mentioned in the affidavit of admission / denial of document of defendant. Though, the DW1 stated that the defendant has not accepted the contents of the invoices, however, it is also amply clear that the defendant has not raised any written objection in respect of the invoices Ex.PW1/2. The above emails exchanged CS (Comm) No. 787/2022 M/s. Intec Infonet Pvt. Ltd. Vs. SCS Tech India Pvt. Ltd. Page 25 of 27 between the parties clearly shows that till August 2020, the defendant had not raised any objection regarding the invoices as well as pending payments to be made by the defendant to the plaintiff. Rather DW1 in the email dated 01.08.2020 on behalf of the defendant assured the plaintiff that they will look into the pending payments when the lock-down eases and they were in state of normalcy. Thus, the plaintiff has established that the defendant has not paid the remaining balance payment of Rs.30,29,600/- despite of rendering of service by the plaintiff to the defendant in terms of purchase order Ex.P1. Accordingly, the plaintiff has proved its case against the defendant for recovery of Rs.30,29,600/-.
Accordingly, the issue no.1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
23. Issue No.2 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest and if so, at what rate and for which period? (OPP) In the instant matter, the plaintiff has claimed interest @24% per annum w.e.f. when the said amount was due and payable and further pendente lite and future till the date of realization of the principal amount. As per invoice Ex.PW1/2 (colly), it is mentioned that the interest @36% will be charged for delay payment. However, in the instant matter, plaintiff is claiming interest @ 24% per annum w.e.f. when the said amount was due and payable. Period when the payments became due to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff, it was the time of Covid-19 pandemic and there were Covid-19 related lock-down. In the emails exchanged between the parties regarding pending payment, DW1 Jatin Maru in email dated 01.08.2020 categorically stated that once lock-down eases and they are in the state of normalcy, they will look into pending payment. Thus, considering the Covid- 19 pandemic period and resultant lock-down, the interest @24% per annum CS (Comm) No. 787/2022 M/s. Intec Infonet Pvt. Ltd. Vs. SCS Tech India Pvt. Ltd. Page 26 of 27 w.e.f when the said amount was due and payable appears to be highly exorbitant. As such, this court deems it appropriate to award interest @9% per annum with effect from when the amount due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. Further, this court also deems it appropriate to award pendente lite and future interest @7% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization of the amount.
24. In view of the above discussion, the plaintiff has proved its case against the defendant. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.30,29,600/- (Rupees Thirty Lakh Twenty Nine Thousand Six Hundred only) from the defendant alongwith interest @9% per annum with effect from the date the amount due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff till filing of the suit. Plaintiff shall also be entitled to pendente lite and future interest @7% per annum on the decreetal amount from the date of filing the suit till the realization of the amount.
25. Plaintiff shall also be entitled to cost of Rs.50,000/- which includes court fees, advocate fees and other litigation charges.
26. Decree Sheet be drawn accordingly.
27. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally
signed by lal
lal singh
Date:
singh 2024.08.31
16:31:49
+0530
Announced in Open Court (LAL SINGH)
today on 31.08.2024 District Judge (Commercial Court-01)
South East/Saket Courts, New Delhi
IR
CS (Comm) No. 787/2022
M/s. Intec Infonet Pvt. Ltd. Vs. SCS Tech India Pvt. Ltd. Page 27 of 27