Delhi District Court
M/S Nugreen Building Technologies Pvt. ... vs Ramesh Babu Sukumara Pillai on 25 January, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. NARESH KUMAR MALHOTRA :
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL)-06
TIS HAZARI COURTS, WEST: DELHI
CS (COMM) No. 177/2023
CNR No. DLWT010016072023
25.01.2024
M/s. Nugreen Building Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Plot No. 45, 3rd floor, Road No. 43,
Punjabi Bagh West, New Delhi-110026. .....Plaintiff
Vs.
Mr. Ramesh Babu Sukumara Pillai
Prop. Of M/s. Masters Enterprises,
No. 34/1565A, Market Road,
Edappally P.O. Ernakulam,
Cochin- 682024, Kerala, India. ....Defendant
Date of Institution : 21.02.2023
Date of arguments : 23.01.2024
Date of judgment : 25.01.2024
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs. 14,75,042/- ALONGWITH
FUTURE AND PENDENTE-LITE INTEREST.
JUDGMENT:
1. Vide this judgment, I am deciding the suit for recovery of Rs. 14,75,042/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.
2. The essential facts for disposal of present suit as per plaint are as that the plaintiff is a private limited company duly incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at plot no. 45, 3 rd floor, Road No. 43, Punjabi Bagh West, New Delhi. Mr. Manish, AR of the plaintiff is duly authorized to sign, verify and file the present suit on the basis of plaintiff company vide resolution dated 19.09.2022 CS (Comm.) No. 177/2023 -1- passed by its Board of Director. The defendant is proprietor of M/s. Masters Enterprise. The plaintiff had supplied Minilift station pump of human waste and kitchen waste to the defendant as per order placed by him. The goods were delivered to the defendant's firm through Transport as per the instructions of the defendant. It is mentioned that in the financial year, 2018-2019, plaintiff dispatched the required material, as per requirement and raised invoice. In the year, 2018-2019, the above said material was dispatched through transport after generating the bill as per law under DVAT Act., for a sum of Rs. 23,96,607.32. The defendant has not made the payment of balance amount. Plaintiff has requested the defendant to make the balance payment of Rs. 14,67,383.32 but on each and every occasion defendant made lame excuses by saying that he is facing financial crunches. The plaintiff further averred that the defendant in lieu to discharge its part liability had issued cheque dated 20.08.2019 amounting to Rs. 2,49,600/- and cheque dated 30.08.2019 amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- but when the plaintiff presented both the cheques were dishonoured. The defendant has made part payment of Rs. 25,000/- on 05.03.2020 and again made part payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 11.01.2023. As per the plaintiff now a sum of Rs. 13,67,383.32 is due towards the defendant. The plaintiff further mentioned that defendant did not supply the 'C' Forms as a result of which the plaintiff company had received notice from DVAT department regarding the pending C-form for the financial year, 2015, 2016 & 2017. The plaintiff company sent various emails to the defendant demanding outstanding amount and supply of C-forms but defendant did not respond. Again on 26.03.2021, the plaintiff company again received a notice from DVAT CS (Comm.) No. 177/2023 -2- department regarding default assessment of tax and interest u/s 9(2) of CST Act, wherein the department has demanded a sum of Rs. 51,658.43. The plaintiff company has again sent email on 30.06.2022 requesting the defendant to supply C-form. Thereafter, the defendant stopped receiving calls of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has sent legal notice through its counsel demanding the balance amount and also requested the defendant to sned C-form. The plaintiff has claimed total amount of Rs. 14,75,042/- which includes interest @ 12% from 11.01.2023 to 01.02.2023.
3. The defendant has filed written statement taking preliminary objections that suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery is nothing but a blatant abuse of the process of law and liable to be dismissed subject to heavy cost. The plaintiff had mentioned different amounts on different dates due against the defendant. The present suit is barred by limitation. As per ledger account of the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 14,92,383/- is due and payable as on 19.03.2019. The invoices are dated 22.06.2017, 29.11.2018 & 25.02.2019 and present suit was filed on 14.02.2023, hence the present suit is barred by limitation. The suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed as the same is lacking in material particulars like relevant dates and plaintiff has made vague averments in the plaint. The plaintiff is in possession of number of cheques retained from the defendant as security and filed petition u/s 138 of NI Act. The plaintiff has played fraud upon this court. There was deficiency of service on the part of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 7,71,942/- to the defendant has E1 forms are not issued by the defendant for CS (Comm.) No. 177/2023 -3- the purpose of issuing Form C from the defendant's side. The concerned department has imposed penalty of Rs. 7,71,942/- on the defendant. The plaintiff's failure in issuing E-1 forms for Rs. 7,71,942/- had created a liability of the said amount on the defendant. The defendant had intimated the plaintiff in this regard on multiple occasion but no action is taken by the plaintiff. This court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. In reply on merits, it is mentioned that the plaintiff has always made delayed deliveries and many times delivered sub-standard items to the defendant. The invoices did not bear the signature of the defendant or its representative. The plaintiff has fabricated the account statement. As per the defendant, the dispute arose about the quality and timely delivery of items, after sale service etc. which forced the defendant to withhold some payments. The plaintiff has illegally filled up the cheques and started blackmailing the defendant. It is denied that a sum of Rs. 14,67,383.32 is due and payable to the plaintiff. The goods supplied vide invoice No. NBT/2018-19/1361 dated 25.02.2019 for Rs. 14,45,352/- were not received in full and goods were delivered at the wrong address causing inconvenience in loading and unloading the goods. As per the defendant, he had advanced two cheques dated 11.03.2019 amounting to Rs. 5,79,380/- and dated 20.03.2019 amounting to Rs. 2,49,600/- towards the products purchased by the defendant from the plaintiff. The plaintiff had forged the date on the cheques. As per the defendant, the payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- was made as NBWs were issued against the defendant as well as his daughter. As per the defendant, the transaction dated 11.01.2023 cannot be set up as a transaction between the parties, nor the plaintiff can rely upon the CS (Comm.) No. 177/2023 -4- same in any manner to extend the limitation. It is denied that plaintiff is entitled to interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of Rs. 14,75,042/-. Dismissal of suit is prayed by the defendant.
4. The plaintiff has filed replication and controverted the allegations made in the written statement and further re-affirmed the averments made in the plaint.
5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by me on 04.10.2023, which are as under:-
1) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is within limitation ? (OPP)
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs. 14,75,042/- from the defendant, as prayed? (OPP)
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the interest on the amount of Rs. 14,75,042/-, if yes then at what rate and for what period ? (OPP)
4) Relief.
6. In evidence plaintiff has examined Sh. Manish Kumar, AR of the plaintiff as PW-1. This witness has filed affidavit on the lines of plaint. This witness has proved copy of GST certificate as Ex. PW-1/1, copy of bills as Ex. PW-1/2 (colly), copy of account statement as Ex. PW-1/3 (colly), copy of two cheques as Mark- PW-1/B, copy of notice from DVAT Department as Mark- PW-1/C (colly), copy of legal notice as Ex. PW-1/6, postal receipt as Ex. PW-1/7, Tracking report as Mark- PW-1/D, copy of emails as Ex. PW-1/8 (colly), authority letter as Ex. PW-1/9, Board Resolution as Ex. PW-1/10, copy of Aadhar card of AR as CS (Comm.) No. 177/2023 -5- Ex. PW-1/11 and certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW-1/12. This witness is duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for defendant. During cross examination, this witness has stated that he is not aware if the defendant had sent E-1 form to the plaintiff or not as he has joined the plaintiff company in February, 2018. This witness has admitted that notice Ex. PW- 1/DX1 (colly) was sent by the plaintiff to the defendant. This witness has also admitted that plaintiff company had filed complaints u/s 138 NI Act against the defendant in respect of two cheques. This witness has admitted that plaintiff has also sent Ex. PW-1/DX2 through DLSA to the defendant. This witness has admitted that there are no signatures of the defendant or his representative on the invoices which are marked today. This witness has stated that defendant has made the part payment in January, 2023 and same is reflected in Ex. PW-1/3. This witness has admitted that defendant used to give cheques as security to the plaintiff. This witness has also admitted that defendant some time used to send colour copies of cheques which were given as security to the plaintiff. This witness has admitted that the plaintiff company had made complaint against the defendant in Credit Q forum for recovery of due amount. This witness has admitted that earlier Mr. Kamaljeet, GM of the plaintiff company used to deal with the defendant and on the complaint of the defendant, plaintiff company had deputed other person to deal with the defendant.
On the other hand, defendant has examined himself as DW-1. This witness has filed affidavit on the lines of the written statement. This witness has proved purchase order dated 12.01.2019, 17.10.2018, 17.10.2018, 23.10.2018 & 25.02.2019 CS (Comm.) No. 177/2023 -6- as Ex. DW-1/A (colly), invoice of tax dated 29.11.2018 as Ex. DW-1/B, copy of cheques dated 11.03.2019 & 20.03.2019 with email as Ex. DW-1/C, notice dated 18.11.2021 as Ex. DW-1/D, email to the defendant for issuance of E1 form dated 20.12.2017 as Ex. DW-1/E, relevant page of bank statement of HDFC bank showing payments made to the plaintiff as Ex. DW-1/F, relevavnt pages of bank statement of 'Yes Bank Ltd.', Padivottam Branch, Kochi showing payments made to the plaintiff as Ex. DW-1/G (colly) and certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. DW-1/H. This witness is duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff. During cross examination, this witness has admitted that he knew the Director of the plaintiff since the year, 2017 and he is having business dealing with the plaintiff since the year, 2017. This witness has admitted that plaintiff has supplied the goods to the defendant for a sum of Rs. 20 to 21 lakh and some time plaintiff sent goods directly to his customers. This witness has admitted that in all the three invoices his correct address is mentioned. This witness has stated that he had made the entire outstanding payment to the plaintiff on 19.03.2019. He has admitted that he had issued two cheques to the plaintiff. He has also admitted that he had made payment of Rs. 25,000/- in the year, 2020. He has also admitted that the payment of Rs. 1 lakh was made from the account of his daughter Ms. Neha, who is having separate entity. He has stated that he is having good relation with his daughter Neha and his daughter is having office at Raja Rajeshwari Nagar, Bangalore. This witness has admitted that purchaser has to issue C-form to the seller.
CS (Comm.) No. 177/2023 -7-7. I have heard Ld. Counsels for both the parties at length and perused the record carefully.
8. My issue-wise findings are as under:-
9. Issue No. 1- Whether the suit of the plaintiff is within limitation? (OPD) The burden to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff. It is contended by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that present suit is within limitation as defendant has lastly made payment of Rs. 1 lac on 11.01.2023. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for defendant submits that the present suit is filed on the basis of invoices dated 22.06.2017, 29.11.2018, 25.02.2019 and moreover, payment of Rs. 25,000/- made on 05.03.2020 and payment of Rs. 1 lac on 11.01.2023 was made by the daughter of the defendant and she is having separate entity. So, limitation is not extended if any amount is deposited by the daughter of the defendant.
I have perused the ledger account filed by the plaintiff which is proved on record as Ex. PW-1/3 (colly). As per this document, the defendant has made payment of Rs. 25,000/- on 05.03.2020 and defendant has also made payment of Rs. 1 lac through HDFC bank of 11.01.2023. It is contended by Ld. Counsel for defendant that defendant had issued cheques in favour of the plaintiff and cheques were dishonoured and the daughter of the defendant made payment in the account of the plaintiff. There is no other liability either of the defendant or the daughter of the defendant towards the plaintiff. As the defendant is not able to prove that there was any other liability so it can be said the defendant had made the payment of Rs. 1 lac on CS (Comm.) No. 177/2023 -8- 11.01.2023 for the goods purchased by him. It is denied by the defendant he had also issued cheques in favour of the plaintiff. DW-1 has admitted that he had made payment of Rs. 25,000/- in the year, 2020. I am of the view that if we count the period of limitation from 11.01.2023, the present suit was filed on 21.02.2023 i.e. within the period of limitation. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
10. Issue No. 2 - Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs. 14,75,042/- from the defendant as prayed ? (OPP)
11. At the very Outset, I may observe that the provisions of Section 2 (1) (c)(xviii) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 are very clear which reads as under:-
(c) "commercial dispute" means a dispute arising out of-
(i) ordinary transactions of merchants, bankers, financiers and traders such as those relating to mercantile documents, including enforcement and interpretation of such documents;
(ii) export or import of merchandise or services;
(iii) issues relating to admiralty and maritime law;
(iv) transactions relating to aircraft, aircraft engines, aircraft equipments and helicopters, including sales, leasing and financing of the same;
(v) carriage of goods;
(vi) construction and infrastructure contracts, including tenders;
(vii) agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce.
(viii) franchising agreements;
(ix) distribution and licensing agreements;
(x) management and consultancy agreements;
(xi) joint venture agreement;
(xii) shareholders agreements;CS (Comm.) No. 177/2023 -9-
(xiii) subscription and investment agreements pertaining to the services industry including outsourcing services and financial services;
(xiv) mercantile agency and mercantile usage;
(xv)partnership agreements;
(xvi) technology development agreements; (xvii) intellectual property rights relating to registered and unregistered trademarks, copyright, patent, design, domain names, geographical indications and semiconductor integrated circuits; (xviii) agreement for sale of goods or provision of services;
(xix) exploitation of oil and gas reserves or other natural resources including electromagnetic spectrum; (xx) insurance and re-insurance;
(xxi) contracts of agency relating to any of the above; and (xxii) such other commercial disputes as may be notified by the Central Government.
12. The provisions of Section 2 (1) (c) (xviii) of Commercial Courts Act as above are very much clear. Sale of goods are governed by Sale of Goods Act, they pertain to movable properties, any dispute of sale or agreement to sale of goods of specified value do come within the jurisdiction of Commercial Courts Act. The clause also includes the services and guarantee given for the goods sold. The service or guarantee may be oral or written. Therefore, the facts which alleged in the plaint comes under the Commercial disputes.
13. Secondly, now the question arises whether this Court has the pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter which is dispute. In this regard, the provisions of Section 3 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 provides that:
Section 3 : Constitution of Commercial Courts:CS (Comm.) No. 177/2023 -10-
(1) The State Government, may after consultation with the concerned High Court, by notification, constitute such number of Commercial Courts at District level, as it may deem necessary for the purpose of exercising the jurisdiction and powers conferred on those Courts under this Act:
[Provided that with respect to the High Courts having ordinary original civil jurisdiction, the State Government may, after consultation with the concerned High Court, by notification, constitute Commercial Courts at the District Judge level:
Provided further that with respect to a territory over which the High Courts have ordinary original civil jurisdiction, the State Government may, by notification, specify such pecuniary value which shall not be less than three lakh rupees and not more than the pecuniary jurisdiction exercisable by the District Courts, as it may consider necessary. ] 3[1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the State Government may, after consultation with the concerned High Court, by notification, specify such pecuniary value which shall not be less than three lakh rupees or such higher value, for whole or part of the State, as it may consider necessary.]
14. Admittedly, the Commercial Court Act was amended on 03.05.2018 and by virtue of the amendment and by virtue of the notification, the pecuniary value of the Commercial Courts Act shall not be less than Rs. 3,00,000/-. In the present case, the claim amount which is shown in the plaint is of Rs. 14,75,042/-.
15. The burden to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff. To prove this issue, plaintiff has proved document Ex. PW-1/2 (colly). The document Ex. PW-1/2 (colly) show that plaintiff had supplied goods vide invoice dated 22.06.2017 amounting to Rs.
CS (Comm.) No. 177/2023 -11-2,66,220/-, invoice dated 29.11.2018 amounting to Rs. 3,54,000/- and invoice dated 25.02.2019 amounting to Rs. 14,45,352/-. Thus, goods amounting to Rs. 20,65,572/- were supplied to the defendant as per invoices Ex. PW-1/2 (colly). Even the defendant in his evidence has placed on record purchase order No. 186 dated 12.01.2019 amounting to Rs. 4,91,000/-, purchase order No. 159A dated 17.10.2018 amounting to Rs. 7,20,000/-, Purchase Order No. 163 dated 17.10.2018 amounting to Rs. 1,65,000/-, Purchase Order No. 160 dated 23.10.2018 amounting to Rs. 1,35,000/-, Purchase Order No. 190 dated 25.02.2019 amounting to Rs. 1,19,000/-. Thus, the defendant has himself admitted to issue purchase orders to the plaintiff. Even DW-1 in the cross examination has admitted invoice Mark-A and Ex. PW- 1/2 (colly) and submitted that plaintiff has not supplied all the goods mentioned in the above mentioned invoices. DW-1 has again stated that it is correct that the plaintiff has supplied the goods as per above mentioned invoices but there was short supply of goods amounting to Rs. 3-4 lakhs. This witness has also stated that it is correct that plaintiff has supplied the goods to the defendant for a sum of Rs. 20 to 21 lakhs and some time plaintiff sent goods directly to his customers. It is not proved by the defendant that plaintiff has sent short supply of the goods. As the defendant has clearly admitted that plaintiff has supplied the goods to the defendant for a sum of Rs. 20 to 21 lacs and he has also admitted that in all the three invoices, his correct address is mentioned, I am of the view that the plaintiff is able to prove that the goods were supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant. Moreover, defendant has also issued two cheques i.e. cheque dated 20.08.2019 amounting to Rs. 2,49,600/- and cheque dated CS (Comm.) No. 177/2023 -12- 30.08.2019 amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- marked as Mark- PW- 1/B (colly) in favour of the plaintiff. Both the cheques were dishonoured and it is admitted fact that that the plaintiff has filed complaints u/s 138 of NI Act against the defendant in respect of both the cheques.
16. It is contended by Ld. Counsel for defendant that plaint and the documents of the plaintiff are not specific and suit be dismissed. Ld. Counsel for defendant has argued that in para no. 11 of the plaint the plaintiff is claiming amount of Rs. 14,75,042/- but in paras no. 4, 5 & 6 of the plaint, plaintiff has mentioned the figure as 14,67,383.32. The plaintiff in para no. 7 of the plaint has mentioned that a sum of Rs. 13,67,383.32 is due against the defendant. The plaintiff in paras no. 14 & 21 has mentioned that a sum of Rs. 14,75,042/- which includes interest of Rs. 56,000/- is outstanding as on 01.02.2023. It is also contended by Ld. Counsel for defendant in the legal notice the plaintiff claimed amount of Rs. 15,19,042/- and in the present suit plaintiff has claimed a sum of Rs. 14,75,042/-. I am of the view that if there is variation in the amount claimed by the plaintiff then suit of the plaintiff cannot be dismissed on this score.
17. It is contended by Ld. Counsel for defendant that there is no invoice on record to corroborate the amount of Rs. 1,70,344.80, Rs. 64,900/-, Rs. 1,88,800/- and Rs. 43,158.50 in page no. 1 of Ex. PW-1/3. This contention of Ld. Counsel for defendant also carries no force as defendant has himself issued CS (Comm.) No. 177/2023 -13- purchase orders. Moreover, no question has been asked by Ld. Counsel for defendant to the plaintiff regarding these amounts.
18. It is contended by Ld. Counsel for defendant that plaintiff has not supplied E-1 forms which caused liability of Rs. 7,71,942/- upon the defendant and this fact is admitted by the plaintiff in the cross examination.
PW-1 in the cross examination has stated that he is not aware if the defendant had sent E-1 form to the plaintiff or not. This witness has voluntarily stated that at that time he had not joined the plaintiff company. DW-1 has categorically stated that it is correct that purchaser had to issue C-form to the seller. The plaintiff has placed on record various notices issued by DVAT Department asking the plaintiff to deposit C-form. These notices were proved on record as Mark- PW-1/C (colly). The department of Trade and Taxes had issued notices which are proved as Mark PW-1/C (colly) by the plaintiff, vide which the plaintiff was directed to pay the amount. Moreover, the defendant has not filed any counter claim nor pleaded the same in the written statement. As the defendant has admitted that purchaser had to issue C-form to the Seller and it is an admitted fact that defendant has not issued C-form to the plaintiff, I am of the view that this contention of the defendant carries no force.
19. It is contended by ld. Counsel for defendant that plaintiff is not able to shatter the defence of the defendant. I am of the view that this contention of ld. Counsel for defendant carries no force when DW-1 has clearly admitted that plaintiff has supplied the goods to the defendant for a sum of Rs. 20 to 21 lacs and he has CS (Comm.) No. 177/2023 -14- also categorically stated that he had made the entire outstanding payment to the plaintiff on 19.03.2019. The defendant has admitted that he has not filed any statement of account in the court. I am of the view that burden to prove is on the defendant that entire outstanding amount was paid to the plaintiff. If, we admit the version of the defendant that entire payment was made to the plaintiff on 19.03.2019 then why the defendsant has made payment of Rs. 25000/- on 05.03.2020 and payment of Rs. 1 lac on 11.01.2023 to the plaintiff. So, this contention of the counsel for defendant carries no force.
20. It is contended by Ld. Counsel for defendant that plaintiff had taken blank signed cheques from the defendant as security and presented the cheques in the bank without knowledge of the defendant. The plaintiff has filed complaints against the defendant u/s 138 of NI Act. Thus, the present suit is not maintainable.
The plaintiff in the present case has also placed on record the copy of dishonoured cheques and bank memos. Even the defendant has also placed on reocrd the cheques Ex. DW-1/C. No suggestion is given by the defendant to the PW-1 that these cheques were given as a security. The defendant is admitting to issue cheque dated 20.03.2019 amounting to Rs. 2,49,600/- and cheque dated 11.03.2019 amounting to Rs. 5,79,380/-. As the defendant has himself admitting that both the cheques were issued in fvaour of the plaintiff, I am of the view that this contention of ld. Counsel for defendant carries no force.
CS (Comm.) No. 177/2023 -15-21. As, I held earlier that DW-1 has admitted all the dealings with the plaintiff and also admitted that he has made payment of Rs. 25,000/- in the year, 2020 and also made payment of Rs. 1 lac on 11.01.2023 in the account of plaintiff, I am of the view that plaintiff is able to prove that goods were supplied to the defendant. The plaintiff has placed on record ledger account which is Ex. PW-1/3 (colly). This ledger account is for the period from 01.04.2019 to 11.01.2023. On the second page of ledger Ex. PW-1/3, the plaintiff has mentioned that a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was paid in cash by the defendant on 05.03.2020 and on 01.04.2022 the opening balance was Rs. 14,67,383.32. As per the plaintiff the defendant has made payment of Rs. 1 lac in 11.01.2023, which is duly reflected in the ledger account Ex. PW-1/3 and the plaintiff has shown a sum of Rs. 13,67,383.32 as balance but the in this ledger the plaintiff wrongly shown that closing balance as Rs. 14,67,383.32. Even in para no. 7 of the plaint, the plaintiff has mentioned that a sum of Rs. 13,67,383.32 is outstanding towards the defendant as on 11.01.2023. I am of the view that plaintirf is entitled to amount of Rs. 13,67,383.32 as this amount was due on 11.01.2023.
22. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that plaintiff is also entitled to the amount of Rs. 51,658.43 as the plaintiff has made payment to the Trade and Tax Department. I have perused the plaint. The plaintiff has not claimed this amount in the plaint. I am of the view that plaintiff is not entitled to this amount as plaintiff has not pleaded this amount in the plaint. Accordingly, the issue no. 2 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
CS (Comm.) No. 177/2023 -16-23. Issue No. 3- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the interest on the amount of Rs. 14,75,042/-, if yes then at what rate and for what period ? (OPP) The burden to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff. As, I held earlier that plaintiff is entitled to Rs. 13,67,383.32 from the defendant, now question arises about the plaintiff's entitlement of interest. The plaintiff has claimed interest @ 12% per annum from the defendant. In judgment titled as "M/s. IHT Network Limited Vs. Sachin Bhardwaj" in RFA 835/2016 & CM Appl. 14617/2020 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, vide which the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has granted interest @ 12% per annum. I am of the view that interest claimed by the plaintiff @ 12% per annum is reasonable.
24. RELIEF:
In view of my above discussions, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed and a decree of Rs. 13,67,383.32 is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The plaintiff is also entitled to interest @ 12% per annum from 11.01.2023 since when the amount of Rs. 13,67,383.32 was due till realization. Plaintiff is also entitled to the cost of the suit. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room, after necessary compliance.
Announced in the (NARESH KUMAR MALHOTRA) open court on 25.01.24 District Judge, Comm. Court-06 West, Tis Hazari Courts Extension Block, Delhi/25.01.2024 CS (Comm.) No. 177/2023 -17-