Delhi District Court
Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Kumar Goyal vs Pappu on 14 September, 2022
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL
COURT) NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS,
DELHI
CNR No. DLNW01-002673-2021
CS (COMM.) No. 245/2021
MANOJ KUMAR @ MANOJ KUMAR GOYAL,
S/o Late Sh. Tika Ram,
Proprietor of M/s Himanshu International,
At: Plot No. D-6/A, K. No. 72/24/2,
G.F. Budh Vihar, Phase-II,
Delhi-110086.
---- Plaintiff
Versus
PAPPU, S/o Sh. Shokat Ali,
R/o H. No. 1102, Ward No.7,
Sekhpur, Bhatta Basti,
Khekra, District Baghpat,
Uttar Pradesh, PIN-250101.
--- Defendant
Date of institution : 23.03.2021
Date of arguments : 14.09.2022
Date of judgement : 14.09.2022
JUDGEMENT
1 This is a suit for recovery of Rs.5,26,725/- alongwith interest @18% per annum.
2. The relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff is running his business in the name & style of M/s Himanshu International and is dealing in the Chemicals primarily for colors and dyes for fabrics. In ordinary course of business, defendant approached the plaintiff and purchased different kind of colors and dyes on credit basis, details of which are as follows:
CS (COMM.) No. 245/2021 Page 1 of 6 S.No. Invoice No. Book Dated Amount
No.
1 039 01 17.04.2017 Rs. 3,61,725/-
2 058 02 31.05.2017 Rs. 1,20,500/-
3 059 02 01.06.2017 Rs. 44,500/-
TOTAL Rs. 5,26,725/-
3. It is averred that all the goods were supplied by plaintiff to defendant through Vehicle No. DLQ-2172 on their respective dates as mentioned in the invoices and the abovesaid invoices and goods were duly received by the defendant as the defendant himself made endorsement on each invoices for having received the goods.
4. It is further averred that at the time of purchasing the goods from plaintiff and in general business practice and principles all prices of the goods were to be paid within 60 days from the date of purchase of the goods failing which the purchaser would render himself liable to pay interest thereupon @18% per annum till realization of such amounts due upon the defendant against the said invoices.
5. It is further averred that despite making several oral requests through telephone calls and personal visits to get the payment of the goods sold to the defendant against the aforesaid invoices, the defendant did not pay any heed to the requests of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff stopped further supply of the goods to defendant since June, 2017.
6. It is averred that since the defendant kept on promising to pay all the dues to the plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff believed upon the defendant and decided to file the suit within the CS (COMM.) No. 245/2021 Page 2 of 6 limitation period which was 16.04.2020, however, the plaintiff could not file the suit in April, 2020 due to lock down and COVID-19. However, the certain period has exclused by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in RE: "COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION", Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020, dated 08.03.2021.
7. Hence, the present suit for recovery of Rs. 5,26,725/- alongwith interest @18% per annum to be calculated from 01.08.2017 till the final decision of this Court.
8. The summons of the suit were issued to the defendant and the defendant was duly served through Whatsapp (Mobile No. 9105409035 on 01.09.2021. Despite service, neither the defendant appeared nor filed the written statement. Accordingly, vide order dated 26.11.2021, defendant was proceeded against exparte.
9. I have heard the arguments on behalf of the plaintiff and have gone through the record carefully.
LIMITATION:
10. The present suit was filed on 23.03.2021. The Bills/Tax Invoices in question are dated 17.04.2017, 31.05.2017 and 01.06.2017. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has relied upon the Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 dated 08.03.2021 and the relevant extract of the said Order reproduced as under:
"1. In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall stand excluded. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 15.03.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 15.03.2021.CS (COMM.) No. 245/2021 Page 3 of 6
2. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 15.03.2021. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 15.03.2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply".
11. I have gone through the Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 dated 08.03.2021. Further, I would like to place reliance upon the judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled as "Bharat Skins Corporation Vs. Taneja Skins Company Pvt. Ltd. Reported as RFA(OS) 13/2002 wherein, it was held that:
"In the money suit which is based on current, open and non mutual account the period of limitation is not provided then the same will go in residuary clause i.e. Article 113 of Limitation Act which provides the limitation from the date when right to sue accrue. In the present matter if one claims that the right to sue accrue when they had requested to make the payment which was refused in the month of March, 2017, then the suit is within limitation."
In view of the aforesaid cited law, I am of the view that the present suit is within limitation.
ENTITLEMENT:
12. The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and led evidence on affidavit Ex. PW1/A and proved the carbon copy of Invoice No. 039 dated 17.04.2017 as Ex. PW1/1, carbon copy of Invoice CS (COMM.) No. 245/2021 Page 4 of 6 No. 058 dated 31.05.2017 as Ex. PW1/2, carbon copy of Invoice No. 059 dated 01.06.2017 as Ex. PW1/3, Internet downloaded copy of Form DVAT 56 dated 16.08.2017 submitted with the department as Ex. PW1/4, Internet downloaded copy of E- Receipt of Tax dated 16.08.2017 as Ex. PW1/5, Internet downloaded copy of Form No. 13 for CST from 01.04.2017 to 30.06.2017 for Rs. 16,781/- as Ex. PW1/6, Internet downloaded copy of Form DVAT 20 challan for DVAT from 01.04.2017 to 30.06.2017 as Ex. PW1/7, Internet downloaded copy of Form No. 13 for CST for 01.04.2017 to 30.06.2017 of Rs. 7113/- as Ex. PW1/8, certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW1/9 and copy of his Aadhar Card as Ex. PW1/10.
Since the defendant is already exparte, the evidence led by the plaintiff is gone unrebutted. Accordingly, the plaintiff is succeeded in proving that the defendant had purchased the goods from the plaintiff.
13. As per the carbon copies of Retail Invoice/bills dated 17.04.2017 for Rs. 3,61,725/- Ex. PW1/1, dated 31.05.2017 for Rs. 1,20,500/- Ex. PW1/2 and bill dated 01.06.2017 for Rs. 44,500/- Ex. PW1/3, the goods for a total sum of Rs. 5,26,725/- were supplied by the plaintiff to defendant. As regards the rate of interest, it is clearly mentioned in the Tax Invoices/bills that "interest will be charged @18% if not paid at the time of presentation." Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the principal amount of Rs. 5,26,725/- alongwith pendente-lite and future interest @ 18% per annum from the defendant.
CS (COMM.) No. 245/2021 Page 5 of 6RELIEF:
14. As per discussions above, suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant with costs of the suit. Fee of the advocate is assessed to Rs.22,000/-.
15. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. Original documents, if any be returned to plaintiff, as per rules.
File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed by Announced in the open GURDEEP GURDEEP SINGH SINGH Date: 2022.09.14 court on 14.09.2022 16:12:55 +0530 (GURDEEP SINGH) District Judge (Commercial Court) North West District Rohini Courts, Delhi CS (COMM.) No. 245/2021 Page 6 of 6