Delhi District Court
Jscc/Ascj/Guardian Jud Ge (East) Kkd ... vs Mr. Sukanata Sen on 8 July, 2013
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. JAGDISH KUMAR
JSCC/ASCJ/GUARDIAN JUD GE (East) KKD COURTS DELHI
Suit no. 213/11
Unique Case ID No. 02402C197962011
M/S Percos India (P) Ltd.,
Registered Office. At Plot no. 5,
nd
2 M/s Percos India (P) Ltd.,
Floor, Neelkanth Chamber1,
LSC, Saini Enclave, Vikas Marg Extn.,
New Delhi92. ... Plaintiff
Vs.
Mr. Sukanata Sen
Proprietor
M/s NSSCO Pharma,
112A, Shyam Bazar Street,
Kolkata700005. .....Defendant
Date of institution of Suit : 07.07.2011
Date of Arguments : 08.07.2013
Date of decision : 08.07.2013
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.1,21,061/.
Suit no. 213/11 1/5
2
EXPARTE JUDGMENT
1 The plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.
1,21,061/ against the defendant. Brief facts of the case are that
plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of
pharmaceutical and cosmetic formulations of specialized cosmetic
personal care products and the defendant is engaged in the business
of sales and distribution of drugs, medicine, cosmetic and
pharmaceutical products and other related products. The defendant is
is a proprietorship concern and solely controlled and managed by the
defendant.
2 It is submitted that in July 2006, the defendant approached
the plaintiff, to appoint the defendant as its stockiest of the medicine
and other pharmaceutical products manufactured by the plaintiff.
The defendant assured the plaintiff that he will make the payment to
the plaintiff or to his bank account within 34 days, after receiving the
products on credit basis. It is submitted that the plaintiff appointed
the defendant as the stockiest for the sale and distribution of the
pharmaceutical/cosmetic products for the whole area of Kolkata vide
its appointment letter dated 12.07.06. It is submitted that the terms and
Suit no. 213/11 2/5
3
conditions of the appointment letter were duly agreed by the
defendant. The plaintiff was also maintaining a running account of
entire transactions being carried out between the plaintiff and the
defendant.
3 It is further submitted that the plaintiff started to deliver
goods to the defendant through its sales agent, for the purpose of sale
and distribution in the territory of Kolkata. The goods were duly
received by the defendant and were subsequently sold to the
customers as well as in the open market. It is submitted that the
defendant was entitled to earn a margin to the extent of 10% on the
sale of non DPCO products (Drug Price Control Order) and 8% on the
sale of DPCO products on the sale and distribution of the goods of the
plaintiff. It is submitted that since July, 2006 the plaintiff has sold and
delivered its pharmaceutical products to the defendant and raised the
invoices against the goods delivered to the defendant. It is submitted
that the goods have already been sold by the defendant in open
market as well as to the customers, however the defendant has failed
to make regular payment against the invoices.
Suit no. 213/11 3/5
4
4 It is submitted that as per the account maintained by the
plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,21,061 is outstanding against the defendant. It
is submitted that the defendant has lastly paid a sum of Rs.6,000/ on
24.02.09leaving a balance of Rs.1,21,061/. The plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 25.03.11 to the defendant calling upon the defendant to make the payment of the outstanding due. Even though the defendant neither repaid the amount nor replied the legal notice. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery. 5 The defendant was served with the summons of the suit by publication in newspaper Statesman dated 22.09.12. But the defendant has not appeared after service, so the defendant was proceeded against exparte on 23.11.12.
6 In exparte evidence plaintiff examined Sh. Ashwani Aneja, General Manager (Finance and Administration) as as PW1. The plaintiff has relied upon documents from Ex. PW1/A to Ex. PW1/F. 7 I have heard the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and gone through the record of the case carefully.
Suit no. 213/11 4/5 5 8 It is clear from Ex.PW1/B that the defendant was appointed by plaintiff as its stockiest. Ex.PW1/C to Ex.PW1/C3 and Ex.PW1/F shows that outstanding of Rs.1,21,061/ against the defendant. The legal notice dated 25.03.11, Ex.PW1/D was also issued to the defendant. The testimony of PW1 has gone unrebutted and unchallenged as the defendant is exparte. The suit is within a period of limitation. So, I have no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the PW1 in view of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as "Press Trust of India Ltd. V/s. Nav Bharat Press (Bhopal Pvt. Ltd. ) & Ors. 2012 VI AD Delhi 2005" and Jai Gopal Goyal & Anr. Vs. Bishen Dayal Goyal DCLR 2005 (1) Delhi49. So the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.1,21,061/ along with pendentelite and future interest @12% per annum from filing of the suit till its realization. The cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Announced in open Court (JAGDISH KUMAR)
today i.e 08.07.2013) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(East)
KKD COURT/DELHI
Suit no. 213/11 5/5
6
Suit no. 213/11
08.07.2013
Present: Counsel for plaintiff.
Defendants exparte.
Final arguments heard.
Put up at 4.00 p.m. for order.
(Jagdish Kumar)
JSCC/ASCJ/G. Judge (East)
08.07.13
At 4.00 p.m.
Present: Counsel for plaintiff.
Defendants exparte.
Vide separate judgment the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs. 1,21,061/ along with pendentelite and future interest @12% per annum from filing of the suit till its realization. The cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Jagdish Kumar) JSCC/ASCJ/G. Judge (East) 08.07.13 Suit no. 213/11 6/5