Delhi District Court
In Re vs M/S Supermachines & Tools on 25 April, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. HARISH KUMAR : ADDL. DISTRICT
JUDGE -13 : CENTRAL DISTRICT ; TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
CS No.15489/16 (Old No.12/2016 )
In re:
M/s Leuze Electronic Pvt. Ltd.
Office at
205, Jain Bhawan, 18/12
W.E.A Karol Bagh
New Delhi
......... Appellant
Versus
M/s Supermachines & Tools
Plot No. 57, 2nd Floor,
Lakshmi Nagar Colony
Wellington Road,
Secunderabad, T.S.-500026.
.......Respondent
Date of institution of present appeal : 27.01.2016
Date of receiving in this Court : 28.01.2016
Date of hearing arguments : 25.04.2017
Date of Judgment : 25.04.2017
Ex-parte Judgment
1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.5,95,440.43/-
with pendentilite and future interest against defendant stating that plaintiff is a limited company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act 1956 and engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing machine tools and various electrical goods. The plaint has been signed, verified instituted and filed by Sh. Aman Mittal, Manager (North) of the Plaintiff Company, who has been duly authorized by the Board of Directors of the company.
CS No. 15489/16 M/s Lueze Electronic P. Ltd. v. M/s Supermachines Tools 1/4
2. It is averred that defendant approached plaintiff in August, 2012 and represented themselves as one of the leading company of Machine Tools and impressed plaintiff to such an extent that plaintiff offered them to purchase different kinds of sensors. Defendant time to time issued purchase order to plaintiff and plaintiff supplied defendant the products as per the purchase order raised by defendant and plaintiff dully booked the consignment at the defendant's destination and the same had been successfully delivered to defendant.
3. Plaintiff opened a running account of defendant for the transactions held between them. Plaintiff received last payment from the defendant in the month of November 2014 and reminded them for the remaining payment of Rs. 5,95,440.43/- through phones, emails and other modes but they have paid no heed to pay the outstanding amount to plaintiff and defendant did not pay the outstanding amount and started avoiding plaintiff.
4. Therefore, plaintiff company issued a legal notice dated 13.08.2015 calling upon the defendant to make the outstanding payment. Since defendant did not make the payment even after receiving legal notice dated 13.08.2015, plaintiff was left with no option but to file the present suit of recovery against defendant.
5. Summons of the suit were duly served upon the defendant but despite service defendant chosen not to appear before the Court. Hence, defendant was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 17.08.2016 and case was adjourned for ex-parte PE.
6. In support of its case, plaintiff examined Sh. Aman Mittal as PW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A in his examination-in-chief and relied upon Certificate of Incorporation Ex.PW1/1, Copy of Board Resolution Ex. PW1/2 in affidavit is de-exhibited mark A, CS No. 15489/16 M/s Lueze Electronic P. Ltd. v. M/s Supermachines Tools 2/4 Purchase Order invoice and dispatch receipt and proof of delivery Ex.PW1/3, Certified copy of running account un-reconciled transaction details, statement of accounts, account balance and payment pending details Ex.PW1/4, copy of general ledger of the company reflecting dues of the defendant Ex.PW1/5 in affidavit is de-exhibited Mark B, Legal notice with receipt online delivery report Ex.PW1/6. Plaintiff thereafter closed its evidence.
7. Record of the case perused carefully and arguments addressed by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff taken into consideration.
8. Pleading of the plaintiff as well as evidence of the plaintiff's witness remained unchallenged and unassailed. Witness of the plaintiff PW-1 deposed that he was authorized to institute the present suit on behalf of the plaintiff and was also authorized to sign, verify the pleadings on behalf of the plaintiff. He was authorized to do so vide a resolution dated 14.01.2016 mark A. Although, the resolution has not been proved but the oral testimony of PW-1 in this regard remained unchallenged and therefore his testimony to this effect has to be acted upon. PW-1 further proved the purchase order, invoice and dispatch receipt and proof of delivery Ex.PW1/3 (containing 174 pages). Plaintiff has also relied upon certified copy of running account of unreconciled transaction details, statement of accounts and account balance and payment pending details Ex.PW1/4, copy of general ledger of the company reflecting dues of the defendant mark B, legal notice with receipt online delivery report Ex.PW1/6. The unreconciled transaction details, statement of account, balance of accounts etc are electronic printouts which are not admissible in the absence of certificate U/s 65 B of the Evidence Act. However, the statement of PW-1 on oath that a sum of Rs.5,94,440.43/- is outstanding against the defendant on account of good supplied to defendant from time to time, has remained unchallenged and there is nothing on record to disbelieve the testimony of PW-1 who has corroborated the averment CS No. 15489/16 M/s Lueze Electronic P. Ltd. v. M/s Supermachines Tools 3/4 made in the plaint. Therefore, plaintiff has successfully proved that a sum of Rs.5,94,440.43/- is outstanding against the defendant.
9. Plaintiff has claimed interest @ 34 % p.a. but nothing has been placed on record to show that there was an agreement for payment of interest at such rate for that there was any prevalent practice. Hence, the interest claimed at such rate is not awardable but since the transaction between the plaintiff and defendant is commercial in nature, therefore, plaintiff is certainly entitled for interest in terms of Section 34 of CPC which provides for grant of interest @ 6 % for pendentlite period and for future interest at such rate as court deems it reasonable but not exceeding the rate at which nationalized banks lends money.
10. In view of the above, suit of the plaintiff is allowed and a decree for recovery of sum of Rs. 5,95,440.43/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Ninety Five Thousand Four Hundred Forty and Forty Three Paise only) is hereby passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Plaintiff shall also be entitled for simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the passing of decree and simple interest @ 9% per annum from the passing of the decree till realization.
11. Cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of plaintiff.
12. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
13. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.
(Harish Kumar)
Announced in open Court ADJ-13(Central)/THC
(Judgment contains 4 pages) Delhi/25.04.2017
CS No. 15489/16 M/s Lueze Electronic P. Ltd. v. M/s Supermachines Tools 4/4