Delhi District Court
M/S Sanwalee Enterprises vs M/S Primus Retail Pvt. Ltd on 7 September, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUKHDEV SINGH: ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE: WEST DISTRICT: TEES HAZARI COURTS:
DELHI.
CS No. 1183/11/10
M/s Sanwalee Enterprises
7/54, Punjabi Bagh West
New Delhi 110026 (Through its Partner
Ms. Meenakshi Gulati) ....Plaintiff
Vs.
1 M/s Primus Retail Pvt. Ltd.
Nike Outlet
No.62, Whitefield Main Road,
Bangalore-560066
Also at : Regd. Office #7, Ist Cross
3rd Main, Ashwini Layout
Ejipura, Banglore-560047
Through its Managing Director/Director
( Mr. Balaji Bhatt)
2 M/s Aryan Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd.
Nike Outlet
No.62, Whitefield Main Road
Bangalore-56066
3 Ms. Divya Sriniwas (Project Road)
M/s Primus Retail Pvt. Ltd.
Nike outlet
No.62, Whitefield Main Road
Bangalore-560066 .....Defendants
Date of Institution : 16.09.2010
Judgment Reserved for : 07.09.2013
Judgment Passed on : 07.09.2013
JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff Company has filed the suit for recovery of Rs.3,67,007 /- ( Rupees Three Lakhs Sixty Seven
Thousand and Seven ) against the defendants.
2 It is, inter alia, stated in the plaint that plaintiff is a partnership firm duly registered under the Partnership Act and CS No. 1183/11/10 M/s Sanwalee Enterprises Vs. Primus Retail ( P) Ltd Page 1/5 carrying on the business of manufacturing of fabrication steel, supply of display fixtures as well as its installation. Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 are stated to be sister concern and Defendant No.3 is the Project Head of defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2.
It is stated that defendant No.2, being the sister concern of defendant No.1., placed the order for supply of display fixtures and its installation on 23.6.2009. The plaintiff dispatched the articles against the order placed by the defendant vide invoice No. 835 of dated 17.7.2009 for a sum of Rs. 2,55,772/-, which was duly acknowledged by defendant No.3 on 22.7.2009.
It is further stated that the order of dated 23.6.2009, which was sent through invoice of dated 17.7.2009 was requested to be replaced in the name of defendant No.1 and raise a new invoice. Accordingly, the plaintiff firm cancelled the invoice of dated 17.7.2009 and replaced the same in the name of defendant No.1. The plaintiff raised a debit note for a sum of Rs. 35,510/- claiming amount towards freight and cartage of the goods in the name of defendant No.1, which was duly received by them through DTDC Courier. Though the defendants were supposed to make 50% payment in advance of the goods dispatched and 50% after delivery, but the defendants neither made advance payment nor made any payment after its delivery.
CS No. 1183/11/10 M/s Sanwalee Enterprises Vs. Primus Retail ( P) Ltd Page 2/5
Despite several requests, defendants did not clear the amount of Rs. 2,50,772 plus debit note of Rs. 35,510/-. The plaintiff got issued notice of dated 20.03.2010 calling upon the defendants to pay an amount of Rs. 2,91,282/- alongwith with interest amount of Rs. 75,725/- at the rate of 24 % per annum. The defendants neither replied the notice nor made payment of the outstanding amount. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for a sum of Rs. 3,67,007/- against the defendants. 3 Summons of the suit were issued to the defendants, however, defendants did not file their Written Statement despite service. Hence, their defence has been struck off by the Ld. Predecessor.
4 To prove its case, the plaintiff company has examined Ms. Meenakshi Gulati, Partner, as PW.1. She has deposed on affidavit Ex.PW.1/1 and has reiterated the pleas taken by them in the plaint and got exhibited documents from Ex.PW.1/A to Ex.PW.1/R and Mark X. 5 I have heard Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and have also perused the material placed on record.
6 To ascertain as to whether the plaintiff has succeeded in proving its case or not, a look has to be made to the testimony of Ms. Meenakshi Gulati, Partner, PW.1, and the documents got exhibited in her testimony.
CS No. 1183/11/10 M/s Sanwalee Enterprises Vs. Primus Retail ( P) Ltd Page 3/5
Firstly, the documents got exhibited by Ms. Meenakshi Gulati, partner, PW.1 are taken up. Ex.PW.1/A and Ex.PW.1/B are Form A and Form B under Registrar of Firms showing that the firm is duly registered under the Partnership Act; Ex.PW.1/C is the letter of dated 23.6.2009 written by defendant No.2, placing orders with the plaintiff firm; Ex.PW.1/D is consignment bill of M/s Om Logistics Ltd; Ex.PW.1/E is the invoice of dated 17.7.2009, for a sum of Rs. 2,55,772/- showing delivery of goods to defendant No.2, Ex.PW.1/F is the copy of e-mail canceling the purchase order and replacing the same through revised purchase order in the name of defendant No.1/ Primus Retail Pvt. Ltd, Ex.PW.1/G is letter of defendant No.1/ Primus Retail Pvt. Ltd, placing order with the plaintiff firm; Ex.PW.1/H is the fresh invoice in the name of defendant No.1; Ex.PW.1/I is the debit note for a sum of Rs. 35,510/- showing freight and cartage charges etc; Ex.PW.1/J is the receipt of debit note; Ex.PW.1/K and Ex.PW.1/L are the copies of e-mail demanding outstanding payment from the defendants and Ex.PW.1/M is the legal notice and Ex.PW.1/N to Ex.PW.1/P are the receipts thereof.
7 From the testimony of Ms. Meenakshi Gulati, Partner, PW.1, which has gone unrebutted and unchallenged coupled with documents especially Ex.PW.1/C, Ex.PW.1/E, Ex.PW.1/G, Ex.PW.1/H, Ex.PW.1/I and Ex.PW.1/M, it is evident CS No. 1183/11/10 M/s Sanwalee Enterprises Vs. Primus Retail ( P) Ltd Page 4/5 that initially defendant No.2 placed order with plaintiff firm vide Ex.PW.1/C for supply of various goods, the said goods were delivered to them vide invoice Ex.PW.1/E; however, the order placed was requested to be replaced in the name of defendant No.1 vide Ex.PW.1/G, which was acceded to by the plaintiff who sent the goods on fresh invoice Ex.PW.1/H and raised debit note Ex.PW.1/I for a sum of Rs.. 35,510/ -; though the defendant received the goods, but did not make complete payment against the goods supplied to them and an amount of Rs. 2,50,772/- alongwith debit note for a sum of Rs. 35.510/- and Rs. 75,725/- towards interest at the rate of 24 % per annum totaling to Rs. 3,67,007/- was outstanding.
8 In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitled for an amount of Rs. 3,67,007- which was payable by the defendants. Therefore, a decree for an amount of Rs.3,67,007 /- ( Rupees Three Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand and Seven ) is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants alongwith interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realisation. Costs of the suit is also allowed. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court ( SUKHDEV SINGH )
07.09.2013. Addl. District Judge:05
West District: THC:
Delhi.
CS No. 1183/11/10 M/s Sanwalee Enterprises Vs. Primus Retail ( P) Ltd Page 5/5