Bangalore District Court
M/S Matrix Cellular (International) vs Damodara Naidu Vuppalapati on 19 December, 2015
C.R.P.67} Government of Karnataka
Form No. 9 TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGEMENTS
(Civil)
SUITS
Title Sheet for IN THE COURT OF THE SMALL CAUSES
Judgement in
AT BENGALURU.
PRESENT : Smt.K.Katyayini, B.Com.,LL.B.,
XIII Addl.Small Cause Judge
& Member MACT, Bengaluru.
Dated: This the 19th day of December, 2015
S.C.No.1095/2015
Plaintiff: M/s Matrix Cellular (International)
Services Pvt. Limited,
a company registered under the
Companies Act, 1956 and having
its Branch Office at No.95,
17th B Main Road,
Koramangala,
Bengaluru - 560 095.
Represented by its
Executive Mr.K. Udayakumar.
(By Pleader - Sri.Kasyap N.Naik.)
-Vs-
Defendants: Damodara Naidu Vuppalapati,
S/o Rangaiah Naidu Vuppalapati,
Residing at: #7, 3rd Floor,
Chengammaraju Layout,
J.P. Nagar 7th Phase,
Bengaluru-560 078.
(By Pleader - Exparte.)
(SCCH-15) 2 SC.1095/2015
Date of Institution of the Suit: 15.09.2015
Nature of the Suit (Suit on Recovery of money
pronote, Suit for Declaration and
Possession Suit for injunction etc.,)
Date of the commencement of 20.11.2015
Recording of the evidence:
Date on which judgment 19.12.2015
Was pronounced:
Total Duration: Year/s Month Day/s
- 03 04
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendant for recovery of money.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case are that it is a company carrying out the business o International Mobile Connections in the name and style of Matrix Cellular (International) Services Private Limited having its head office at No.7, Khullar Farms 140, Mandi Road, Mehruli, New Delhi-110 030, incorporated under the Provisions of Indian Companies Act, 1956 and having its branch officer at the address stated in the cause title which is represented by Mr. Uday Kumar, Executive who has been authorized by the company to represent it. (SCCH-15) 3 SC.1095/2015
b) Defendant had applied for international mobile connections in Bengaluru and produced standard Customer Agreement Form containing the terms and conditions regarding the usage of said connection. After being satisfied about the terms and conditions, he had agreed to hire a mobile connection and signed a statement after going through the terms and conditions therein.
c) Thereafter several bills were raised on the basis of usage of mobile connections. However, in spite of several requests and demands, he had failed pay sum of Rs.38,626.90 in spite of he had specifically and expressly agreed to clear the bills charged for the usage of mobile connections under the said agreements.
d) Therefore, it has got issued legal notice dated 31.10.2012 calling upon him to make the payment together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. which was duly served on him. Despite of that, he has neither chosen to reply nor comply with the demands made in the notice. Therefore, it has come before this Court with (SCCH-15) 4 SC.1095/2015 the present suit. Accordingly, prayed to decree the suit as sought for.
3. The suit summons sent to the defendant through RPAD returned unserved as intimation delivered. Therefore, service held sufficient and defendant placed exparte and the matter was posted for plaintiff's evidence on merits.
b) In support of its case plaintiff got examined its present alleged Executive (Credit Control) as PW-1. Got exhibited 7 documents and closed his side. Heard the counsel for plaintiff on merits of the case and perused the record.
4. Now the points that arise for the due consideration of this Court are;
1. Whether plaintiff is duly represented by its alleged authorized person?
2. Whether plaintiff proves that defendant had hired international mobile connections from it as contended in the plaint?
(SCCH-15) 5 SC.1095/2015
3. Whether the plaintiff further proves that defendant is in due of Rs.38,626.90 the suit claim amount towards the usage of the mobile connections, he had under the alleged agreements?
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for relief it has sought for?
5. What order?
5. Now the findings of this Court on the above said points are answered in the;
1. Point No.1 : Negative.
2. Point Nos.2 to 4: Do not survive for consideration.
3. Point No.5 : As per final order for the following reasons.
REASONS
6. POINT No.1:- It is the case of the plaintiff that it is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and it is duly represented by its Executive Mr. K. Udaya Kumar. To establish that the plaintiff got examined its present alleged Executive (Credit Control) and the (SCCH-15) 6 SC.1095/2015 authorised person as PW-1 who has filed his affidavit evidence wherein he has reiterated the plaint averments.
7. PW-1 has produced Ex.P-1 the alleged board resolution dated 07.09.2015 wherein it is stated that PW- 1 who is alleged Executive (Credit Control) and employee of the plaintiff company has been authorised to do certain acts stated therein which of course includes to represent the company in legal proceedings.
8. He has also produced alleged board resolution dated 13.11.2014 which is also of the similar type authorizing the then alleged Executive (Credit Control) by name Mr.K.Udaya Kumar. But it is important to note that on plain perusal of Ex.P-1 and 2, they categorically reveal that they are only extracts of the alleged resolutions. Moreover, in the very 1st line of those documents, it is stated that they are certified true copies of the Extracts/Minutes of the resolution adopted by the Finance and Advisory Committee of the Board of Directors.
(SCCH-15) 7 SC.1095/2015
9. The deposition sheet reveals that the counsel appearing for the plaintiff submitted that those documents at Ex.P-1 and 2 themselves are the original resolutions. Therefore, this Court was constrained to take those documents even they are just extracts and neither the original or the copy of the full document.
10. Of course, in the present case on hand, defendant remained exparte and thereby there is nothing is elicited to discard the oral evidence of PW-1. But it is important to note that nowhere in his affidavit evidence PW-1 has stated that Ex.P-1 and 2 are the original board resolutions.
11. Since it is an admitted fact that as per the pleadings of the plaintiff itself, it is a company registered under Companies Act, 1956, it should have memorandum of association and articles of association wherein the procedures to be followed while passing the resolution, the quorum to pass the resolution and etc. would be stated.
(SCCH-15) 8 SC.1095/2015
12. The plaintiff has failed to produce the registration certificate of the company, the memorandum of association and articles of association of the company at least the original board resolution or the certified copy thereof i.e. in its entirety before this Court at least shown the original for perusal of this Court and has produced only an extract of the alleged resolution which is not a complete document and thereby cannot be an evidence in the eye of law.
13. Thus, to establish the authority or right of the persons alleged to be the then Executive and the present Executive (Credit Control) i.e. the locus standi to represent and conduct the case on behalf of the plaintiff, there is nothing on record. Therefore, this point is answered in negative.
14. POINTS Nos.2 TO 4:- In view of answering point No.1 in negative, these points do not survive for consideration. Accordingly, these points are answered. (SCCH-15) 9 SC.1095/2015
15. POINT No.5:- In the result, the Court proceeds to pass the following order.
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Draw a decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced in the open Court by me on this the 19th day of December, 2015.) (K.KATYAYINI), XIII Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for plaintiff PW1: Nazeer List of exhibits marked on behalf of plaintiff Ex.P1 : Board resolution (It is an extract. However, it is the submissions of the counsel that said document itself is the original resolution), Ex.P2 : Board Resolution dtd.13.11.2014 executed by the company in favour of the then executive Sri. K. Uday Kumar (It is an extract. However, it is the submissions of the counsel that said document itself is the original resolution), (SCCH-15) 10 SC.1095/2015 Ex.P3 : The Customer agreement forms (2 in nos.). Ex.P4 : Electronic printouts of Call wise detailed Bills (2 in nos) with certificate u/s 65 b (4) of Indian evidence act Ex.P5 : True copy of customer ledger extract Ex.P6: Postal receipt Ex.P7 : Office copy of legal notice dtd.31.10.2012. List of witnesses examined for defendant
- None -
List of exhibits marked on behalf of defendant
- Nil -
(K.KATYAYINI), XIII Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru.