Bangalore District Court
M/S. Dhanuka Enterprises vs M/S. Arvind Interiors Pvt. Ltd on 23 October, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE XXX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY
DATED THIS THE 23 rd DAY OF OCTOBER 2020
-: PRESENT:-
SRI. MAANU K.S., B.Sc., LLB.
XXX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City
O.S.No.7426/2016
PLAINTIFF : M/S. Dhanuka Enterprises,
No.221, Shed No.2, Chunchagatta
Road, Shivashakthinagar,
Konankunte Post, JP Nagar,
7th Phase, Bengaluru-560 062,
Rep.by its Proprietor Mr.Rajesh
Kumar Dhanuka.
(By Pleader Sri.A.T.Manohar,
Adv.)
/VS/
DEFENDANTS: M/s. Arvind Interiors Pvt. Ltd.,
No.112/31, 1st Floor, 6th Cross,
SSI Area, Rajajinagar 6th Block,
Bengaluru-560 010.
Rep.by its Managing Director
Sri.Ashok.
(Exparte.)
DATE OF INSTITUTION 21-10-2016
NATURE OF THE SUIT (Suit on Suit for
Pronote, Suit for declaration and Recovery of
Possession, Suit for injunction, etc.) money.
DATE OF THE COMMENCEMENT
2 O.S.No.7426/2016
OF RECORDING OF THE EVIDENCE 12-03-2018
DATE ON WHICH THE JUDGEMENT
WAS PRONOUNCED 23-10-2020
TOTAL DURATION YEAR/S MONTH/S DAY/S
04 00 02
(MAANU K.S.),
XXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
3 O.S.No.7426/2016
JUDGEMENT
1. This is a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.9,42,078/- together with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the date of suit till realization along with costs of the proceedings.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case are as under:
(a). It is the case of the plaintiff that it is a proprietary concern dealing with the supply of Plywood, Block Boards and Adhesives and is supplying the commodities to its customers ranging from individuals to companies across the State and has earned the goodwill from its customers for the services and quality of the goods supplied by it.
That knowing the same, the defendant approached it for supply of the materials and eventually became its regular customer, due to which it gradually extended the credit facility to the defendant with a hope that the defendant will not commit default in making payments.
(b). It is further contended that initially the defendant was making the payment of arrears in time for goods purchased from it and as such, it had given the credit facility up to Rs. 10 lakhs and on many occasions, the credit facility has been extended more than the said range up to the extent of Rs. 17 lakhs and during the month of September 2013, when the total outstanding required to be 4 O.S.No.7426/2016 paid gone to the extent of Rs. 17 lakhs, it has requested the defendant to make payments at the earliest, for which the defendant issued cheques towards payments for materials purchased from it and some of the cheques issued by the defendant came to be dishonoured on multiple times during the period from October 2013 to November 2013 and since then, it has been requesting the defendant to clear the outstanding dues, but the defendant went on falsely assuring and promising that it would clear the balance outstanding and cleverly managed to get the cheque issued in its favour outdated to proceed legally.
(c). The plaintiff further contended that it had reminded the defendant over telephone and also issued emails regarding the pending bills, but the defendant has neither responded properly nor paid the outstanding dues and as such, on 25-08-2014, a final reminder for overdue payment was issued, for which the defendant sent a reply dtd.03-09- 2014 categorically admitting the liability and further sought for 60 days time to clear the balance and thereafter also failed to keep up its promise and as such, the plaintiff further issued a reminder on 30-07-2015 and finally on 11-02-2016 requested the defendant to pay the outstanding dues and as on 23-07-2015, the total outstanding due was Rs.9,42,078/-, which was required to be paid by the defendant and since the defendant 5 O.S.No.7426/2016 neither responded to the letters nor paid the aforesaid amount, hence, it got issued a legal notice dtd.02-06-2016 calling upon the defendant to pay the outstanding dues and despite service of said notice, the defendant has failed to make the payment nor has replied to the said notice, as such, left with no other option, it has come up with this suit. The plaintiff further contended that since the transaction between it and the defendant is a commercial transaction, the defendant is liable to pay interest at the rate of 24% p.a. and therefore, prayed to decree the suit with interest at the rate of 24% p.a.
3. After institution of the suit, the suit summons were issued to the defendant. Though the defendant has appeared through its advocate, it has not filed any written statement, hence, the written statement of the defendant was taken as nil and the case was posted for plaintiff's evidence.
4. In order to substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the proprietor of the plaintiff concern got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P.1 to P.38. Inspite of granting sufficient opportunity, the defendant has not come forward either to cross-examine P.W. 1 or to lead his evidence, hence, cross-examination of P.W.1 and defendant's side evidence were taken as nil and the case was posted for arguments.
6 O.S.No.7426/20165. Heard the arguments of the counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the materials placed on record.
6. The following points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the plaintiff has established that it had supplied the goods under credit facility to the defendant and as on date of suit, the defendant was in due an outstanding sum of Rs.9,42,078/-?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of a sum of Rs.9,42,078/- with interest at 24% p.a.?
3. What order or decree?
7. My answers to the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the affirmative. Point No.2 : Partly in the affirmative. Point No.3 : As per the final order for the following:
REASONS
8. POINTS NO.1 & 2:- Since these points are interconnected with each other, to avoid repetition of averments and appreciation of evidence, these points are taken up together for discussion.
9. The proprietor of the plaintiff Mr. Rajesh Kumar Dhanuka while examining himself as P.W.1 has reiterated the plaint averments and got marked 38 documents as per Ex.P. 1 to P.38. Perusal of the 7 O.S.No.7426/2016 said documents clearly reveals that the plaintiff being a proprietorship concern doing the business of plywood, block boards and adhesives in the cause title mentioned address as shown in Ex.P.1 used to supply the plywood, block boards and adhesives to the defendant on credit basis as per Ex.P. 2 to P.5 and P.35 to P.38 based on the purchase orders placed by the defendant both through emails and over telephone on various dates some of which are marked as Ex.P.20, 23 to 26, 32, 32(a), P.33, P.33(a) and P.33(b) and the total outstanding due as on 23-07-2015 was Rs.9,42,078/- as could be seen from ledger account marked as Ex.P.31 which has been maintained by the plaintiff during the course of its business. Perusal of Ex.P.31 coupled with Ex.P.10 and P.11 cheques bearing No.250214 dtd. 16-10-2013 and 250189 03-10-2013 further reveals that towards part payment of the said outstanding due, the defendant had also issued the said two cheques, which came to be dishonoured on more than one occasion when presented for encashment and the plaintiff had issued various reminders both through letters and also emails as per Ex.P.8 and P.18 to 29 and the defendant by admitting the transactions had sought for time to make payment for the outstanding dues as could be seen from Ex.P.9 reply dtd.25-08-2014 and also the reply email dtd.12-10-2013 marked as Ex.P.22. Ex.P.27 email dtd.15-02-2016 sent to the defendant also discloses 8 O.S.No.7426/2016 that the defendant has been forwarded with the statement of account and was requested to make payments towards the outstanding due.
10. That apart, Ex.P.6 legal notice dtd.2-06-2016 also discloses that plaintiff had demanded the defendant to make payment of the outstanding due of Rs.9,42,078/- along with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. and the said notice has been duly served on the defendant as per Ex.P.7 postal acknowledgment. P.W.1 has specifically deposed that despite service of the said notice, the defendant has not made any payment nor has issued any reply and since the said outstanding due of Rs.9,42,078/- remained unpaid as on date of filing suit, the plaintiff is entitled for a decree from the hands of this Court.
11. The said oral and documentary evidence led by the plaintiff remained unchallenged as the defendant even after appearing through its advocate has not filed its written statement, hence, there is no reason for this Court to disbelieve the oral and documentary evidence led in by P.W.1. The suit of the plaintiff is filed well within limitation and not barred under any law for the time being. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has established the supply of goods under credit basis to the defendant and that there was an outstanding due of Rs.9,42,078/- as on date of filing the suit 9 O.S.No.7426/2016 and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the said sum of Rs. 9,42,078/- along with interest.
12. The plaintiff has sought for interest at the rate of 24% p.a. contending that the transaction between itself and the defendant is a commercial transaction and that the defendant is liable to pay the interest at the rate of 24% p.a. on the outstanding dues. Though the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant is a commercial transaction and it has been mentioned in the terms and conditions of Ex.P.2 to P.5 and P.35 to P.38 invoices that in respect of the delayed payment, interest at the rate of 24% p.a. is chargeable, the plaintiff has not produced any document to show that the defendant had agreed to pay the interest at such a high rate. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that if the defendant is directed to pay the said principal amount of Rs. 9,42,078/- along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of filing this suit till the date of judgment and future interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from the date of this judgment till realization, the same would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, I answer points No.1 in the affirmative and point No.2 partly in the affirmative.
13. POINT NO.3:- In view of the above discussion and my answers to points No.1 & 2 as above, the suit of 10 O.S.No.7426/2016 the plaintiff deserves to be decreed in part with costs. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed in part with proportionate costs.
The plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 9,42,078/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Forty Two Thousand Seventy Eight only) along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of filing the suit till the date of this judgment and future interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from the date of this judgment till realization, from the defendant.
The defendant is hereby directed to pay the decreetal amount to the plaintiff within 3 months from the date of this judgment and decree.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer on computer, transcribed thereof, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this THE 23 RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 ).
( MAANU K.S.), XXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
11 O.S.No.7426/2016ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF/S:
P.W. 1 Mr.Rajesh Kumar Dhanuka.
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANTS/S:
NIL.
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFF/S:
Ex.P.1 VAT registration certificate.
Ex.P.2 to P.5 Invoices. Ex.P.6 & 8 Copy of Legal notices. Ex.P.7 Postal acknowledgement. Ex.P. 9 Reply given by defendant. Ex.P.10 & 11 cheques issued by defendant. Ex.P.12 to 15 Postal receipts. Ex.P.16 & 17 postal acknowledgements. Ex.P.18 to 29 Email printouts. Ex.P.30 & 34 Certificates u/s.65B of Indian Evidence Act. Ex.P.31 Ledge account extract. Ex.P.32 to 33,
32(a), 33(a) & 33(b) Purchase orders.
Ex.P.35 to 38 4 Invoices.
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENDANTS/S:
NIL.
( MAANU K.S.), XXX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.