Delhi District Court
M/S Anandani Couriers & Cargo vs Mr. Pankaj Chopra on 5 October, 2013
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUKHDEV SINGH : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE: WEST DISTRICT: TEES HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
CS No. 1108/11/08
M/s Anandani couriers & Cargo
Proprietor Mr. Umesh Anandani
40, Uday Park, August Kranti Marg,
New Delhi-110049.
.... Plaintiff
Vs.
Mr. Pankaj Chopra
M/s Fast Line India, International Couriers
Shop No.4 2nd Floor,
Mainvera A.C Market, Clock Tower,
Ludhiana.
...Defendant
Date of Institution : 17.03.2008
Judgment Reserved for : 05.10.2013
Judgment Passed on : 05.10.2013
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff M/s Anandani couriers & Cargo has filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 5,12,862/- against defendant alongwith pendentlite and future interest with cost of the suit.
2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s Anandani couriers & Cargo is a company incorporated under the companies Act having its registered office at 40, Uday Park, August Kranti Marg, New Delhi having in the line of international and domestic courier business. Shri Umesh Anandani is the proprietor of the Suit No. 1108/11/08 M/s Anandani couriers & Cargo vs Pankaj Chopra Page no.1 of 13 2 plaintiff duly authorized and empowered to sign and verify the pleading and institute the suit on behalf of the company. It is stated that defendant who was in the business of courier company viz; M/s Fast Line India International Courier approached the plaintiff company for working with him in the business of international courier. Accordingly defendant was appointed as sub-agent of the plaintiff's company and was under obligation to pay for the services rendered for the delivery of the booked consignment/parcel/packets. The plaintiff company provided the services of collecting and delivery of couriers/packets to the defendant and raised the invoices from time to time for the services provided to the defendant.
It is further stated that defendant after receiving the payments from his clients against the services had not paid to the plaintiff despite the facts that all the packets had been delivered at the consignee. It is stated that defendant did not pay for the services rendered commencing from 31.05.2006 to 01.11.2006 amounting to Rs. 5,12,862/- despite sending a legal notice to him by the plaintiff company. Defendant issued a cheque of Rs. 15000/- in favour of the plaintiff, but the same was dishonoured and the plaintiff company filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act which was said to be Suit No. 1108/11/08 M/s Anandani couriers & Cargo vs Pankaj Chopra Page no.2 of 13 3 pending. Despite assurances and representations, the defendant failed and neglected to make the payment of due amount of Rs. 5,12,862/- alongwith interest upon it. Hence, the suit. 3 In the Written Statement, defendant has stated that he never had any business dealings with the plaintiff company. It was denied that he was appointed as sub agent by the plaintiff company. It was pleaded that the court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the suit as the defendant was permanent resident of Ludhiana and the plaint was liable to be rejected as there was no cause of action. Thus, dismissal of the suit has been prayed for.
4. In the replication, the plaintiff company has controverted all the pleas taken by the defendant and reiterated its own pleas.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court:-
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree for sum of Rs. 5,12,862/- or any other amount?
OPP.
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to interest @ 18% p.a pendentelite and till realization of the suit amount or any other rate of Suit No. 1108/11/08 M/s Anandani couriers & Cargo vs Pankaj Chopra Page no.3 of 13 4 interest and if so at what rate and for what period?OPP
3. Whether this court has not territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit as claimed by defendant? OPD
4. Relief.
6. In support of his case, the plaintiff company examined its proprietor Shri Umesh Anandani as PW-1 who has deposed on affidavit Ex. PW-1/A and relied upon documents Ex. PW-1/1A to Ex. PW-1/1D ledger accounts, Ex.PW-1/2A to Ex. PW-1/2J List of invoices, Ex. PW-1/4A to Ex. PW-1/4MM receipt voucher, Ex. PW-1/5A to Ex. PW-1/5B payment voucher, Ex.PW-1/6 legal notice and Ex. PW-1/7 returning memo envelop.
7. In defence, defendant examined Shri Pankaj Chopra as DW-1 who has deposed on affidavit Ex. DW-1/A.
8. I have heard Ld. Counsels for the parties and have perused the material placed on record. My findings on above issues are as under:-
9. Issue no. 1 The onus to prove this issue lies upon the plaintiff. In support of this, he has examined himself as PW-1. He has deposed on affidavit which has been got exhibited as Ex. PW-1/A Suit No. 1108/11/08 M/s Anandani couriers & Cargo vs Pankaj Chopra Page no.4 of 13 5 alongwith documents Ex. PW-1/1A to Ex. PW-1/1D ledger accounts, Ex.PW-1/2A to Ex. PW-1/2J List of invoices, Ex. PW-1/4A to Ex. PW-1/4MM receipt voucher, Ex. PW-1/5A to Ex. PW-1/5B payment voucher, Ex.PW-1/6 legal notice and Ex. PW-1/7 returning memo envelop. He has stated in his affidavit that M/s Anandani Couriers & Cargo was proprietorship firm having its registered office at 40, Uday Park, August Kranti Marg, New Delhi. They have vast experience in the line of international and domestic courier business. Defendant approached them for working with them in the business of international courier. Defendant was appointed as sub broker of their company under the obligation to pay for services rendered for the delivery of the booked consignment/pacel/packets. The defendant had been in the business of courier company by the name of Fast Line India International Courier.
They provided the services of collecting and delivery of courier/packets to the defendant. They raised invoices from time to time for the service provided to them. Defendant after receiving the payments from his clients against the services has not paid to them despite the fact that all the packets have been delivered to the consignee. The defendant was irregular in making payments to the plaintiff company. They have not paid Suit No. 1108/11/08 M/s Anandani couriers & Cargo vs Pankaj Chopra Page no.5 of 13 6 amount for the charges to the plaintiff company for the delivered booked material etc . It has been stated that defendant has not paid for the services rendered commencing from 31.05.2006 to 07.02.2007 amounting to Rs. 5,12,862/- inspite of legal notice of dated 03.02.2007. He has got exhibited his statement of ledger account Ex. PW-1/1A to EX. PW-1/1D and list of invoices as Ex. PW-1/2A to Ex. PW-1/2J. He has further stated defendant issued a cheque of Rs. 15,000/- in their favour which was dishonoured for which they have filed a complaint u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate which was said to be pending. He has also got exhibited general voucher, receipt voucher and payment voucher as Ex. PW-1/3A to Ex. PW-1/3G, Ex. PW-1/4A to Ex. PW-1/4MM and Ex. PW-1/5A to Ex. PW-1/5B. He has also got exhibited legal notice of dated 03.02.2007 as Ex. PW-1/6 and returning envelope Ex. PW-1/7.
In defence, the defendant has examined Shri Pankaj Chopra as DW-1 who has deposed on affidavit Ex. DW-1/A. He has stated in his affidavit that he had nothing to do with M/s Fast Line India International Courier. He was doing his business at Ludhiana at Shop No. 4 , Second Floor, Minerva, A.C Market, Clock Tower, Ludhiana with which M/s Fast Line India International Courier has nothing to do. He never had any dealing with the Suit No. 1108/11/08 M/s Anandani couriers & Cargo vs Pankaj Chopra Page no.6 of 13 7 plaintiff. He has further deposed that the plaintiff has falsely stated that defendant has been appointed as sub agent of the plaintiff firm and he was under obligation to pay for the services rendered for the delivery of the booked consignment/parcel/packet. He has further stated that he has nothing to do with the plaintiff and never acted or appointed as sub agent of the plaintiff firm.
To ascertain whether both the parties were having business transaction, a look has to be made to the testimony of Shri Umesh Anandani, PW-1 as well as Shri Pankaj Chopra, DW-1.
Firstly the testimony of Shri Umesh Anandani, PW-1 is taken up. If a look is made to his cross-examination, he has stated that there was no written document qua the appointment of defendant as their sub agent. He has further admitted that address of the defendant in the invoices raised by them has been mentioned as Shop no. 33, 2nd floor, Minerva AC Market, Clock Tower, Ludhiana.
It is further stated that invoices have not been in the personal name of the defendant. It is also stated that there has been no document to show that the defendant was the proprietor of the M/s Fast Line India International Courier.
If a look is made to document Ex. PW-1/2A which is the Suit No. 1108/11/08 M/s Anandani couriers & Cargo vs Pankaj Chopra Page no.7 of 13 8 invoice, it shows the name and address of the firm as M/s Fast Line India International Courier, Shop no. 33, 2nd floor, Minerva AC Market, Clock Tower, Ludhiana, whereas in the plaint the address has been stated as shop no. 4, 2nd Floor, Minerva, AC market Clock Tower, Ludhiana which has also been admitted in the cross-examination. It has also come on record that the invoices have not been in the personal name of the defendant. The fact that there has been variations in respect of the business address of the defendant company and the invoices have not been in the personal personal capacity of defendant Shri Pankaj Chopra and no document has been put on record to show that the firm M/s Fast Line India International Courier have been a proprietorship concern, list of invoices Ex. PW-1/2A to Ex. PW-1/2J cannot be connected with defendant. When these invoices cannot be connected with the defendant, the statement of ledger account Ex. PW-1/1-A to EX. PW-1/1-D which have been prepared on the basis of these invoices also cannot be connected with the defendant. Similarly general voucher Ex. PW-1/3A to Ex. PW-1/3G and receipt vouchers Ex. PW-1/4A to Ex.PW-1/4MM meet the similar fate.
When the documents placed on the record in the testimony of Shri Umesh Anandani, PW-1 do not connected the Suit No. 1108/11/08 M/s Anandani couriers & Cargo vs Pankaj Chopra Page no.8 of 13 9 defendant with the business transactions, there is no point for examining the testimony of Shri Pankaj Chopra, DW-1. Even nothing material has come in his cross-examination which go in favour of the plaintiff.
Thus, from the testimony of these witnesses, it comes out that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendant was appointed as sub agent for collecting and delivery of courier consignment/pacel/packets. Thus, this issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
10. Issue no. 2 Since issue no. 1 goes against the plaintiff, this issue is also decided against him.
11. Issue no. 3 The onus to prove this issue was on the defendant. In support of this, he has examined himself as DW-1. He has deposed on affidavit which has been got exhibited as Ex. DW-1/A. The relevant portion from his affidavit Ex. DW-1/A is taken up.
He has stated in his affidavit that he never had any dealing with the plaintiff M/s Anandani Couriers & Cargo and never visited Delhi for any purpose . He had been running his business at Ludhiana only. Thus, the court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the suit. He has further Suit No. 1108/11/08 M/s Anandani couriers & Cargo vs Pankaj Chopra Page no.9 of 13 10 stated that the plaintiff has falsely stated that defendant was working at Delhi having its office at Delhi. He has denied that he made part payments which were received by the plaintiff at Delhi.
In defence, the plaintiff has examined Shri Umesh Anandani, PW-1 who has deposed on affidavit Ex. PW-1/A. The relevant portion of his testimony is taken up.
He has deposed on affidavit that defendant was working for gain at Delhi. He made part payment at Delhi and balance payment was payable at Delhi. The defendant has from time to time gave courier/packets at the office of plaintiff company at Delhi. The defendant made some payments against the invoices at Delhi. Thus, the substantial cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of Delhi Courts.
The arguments which has been advanced on behalf of the defendant was that the court was not having jurisdiction as no cause of action arose at Delhi; and the defendant does not reside at Delhi.
On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has stated that the cause of action had arisen at Delhi and the defendant also resides at Delhi.
To ascertain whether cause of action had arisen at Suit No. 1108/11/08 M/s Anandani couriers & Cargo vs Pankaj Chopra Page no.10 of 13 11 Delhi, a look has to be made to the testimony of Shri Umesh Anandani, PW-1. If his cross-examination is looked into, it is noticed that he has stated in his cross-examination that the business address of the respondent has been shop no. 4, 2nd Floor, Minerva, AC market Clock Tower, Ludhiana. He has further deposed that defendant was appointed as sub agent at Ludhiana in the year 2005. However, there was no written document qua the appointment of the defendant as their sub agent at Ludhiana. He was running his business from Ludhiana. He has further stated that consignment collected by their sub agent on different stations were sent to Delhi and from Delhi they send the same to abroad. If the cross-examination of Shri Pankaj Chopra, DW-1 is perused, it is noticed that he has denied the suggestion that he ever made any payment to the plaintiff company at Delhi or anywhere. Except this suggestion, there has been no other suggestion put to Shri Pankaj Chopra, DW-1 in respect of the fact which he has stated in his affidavit that he never had any dealing with the plaintiff M/s Anandani Couriers & Cargo and never visited Delhi for any purpose. Further he has been running his business at Ludhiana only. Not only this, no suggestion has been put in respect of having the defendant worked for gain at Delhi or having their office at Delhi. When no suggestion has been put on Suit No. 1108/11/08 M/s Anandani couriers & Cargo vs Pankaj Chopra Page no.11 of 13 12 these facts, the onus shifts on the plaintiff to prove that the court was having jurisdiction.
Coming to the cross-examination of Shri Umesh Anandanai, PW-1. It has come in the cross-examination of this witness that the defendant was running his own business at Ludhiana when he was appointed as sub agent. If the documents Ex. PW-1/4A to Ex.PW-1/4MM and EX. PW-1/5A to Ex. PW-1/5B which are receipt vouchers and payment vouchers are perused, it is noticed that though these receipt vouchers and payment vouchers show the account in the name of M/s Fast Line India International Courier, but these documents do not reflect as to where the payment has been made. The fact that these documents do not show that the payment had been made to the defendant company at Delhi, the cause of action cannot be said to have arisen at Delhi. Not only this, when the plaintiff himself has admitted that the defendant was running his business at Ludhiana and there was nothing on record to suggest that the defendant has ever worked for gain at Delhi, the jurisdiction on the ground that the defendant having worked for gain at Delhi also does not arise. Thus, from the testimony of these two witness, it comes out that no cause of action has arisen at Delhi nor the defendant has worked for gain at Delhi which entitled the Suit No. 1108/11/08 M/s Anandani couriers & Cargo vs Pankaj Chopra Page no.12 of 13 13 plaintiff to file the suit in Delhi courts. Therefore, the plea taken on behalf of the defendant that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit is well founded. Thus, it is concluded that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Therefore, this issue is decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
12. Issue no. 4 (Relief) In view of the findings on issue nos. 1, 2 and 3, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief prayed for. Suit of the plaintiff deserves dismissal and, hence, the same is dismissed. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court (SUKHDEV SINGH)
on 05.10.2013. Addl. District Judge:05
West District: THC
Delhi:
Suit No. 1108/11/08 M/s Anandani couriers & Cargo vs Pankaj Chopra Page no.13 of 13