Delhi District Court
Ashoka Enterprises (India) vs M/S Servotech Electricals Pvt. Ltd on 26 July, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHUNALI GUPTA, ADJ06, SOUTH DISTRICT,
SAKET COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
CS No.: 161/18
CSDJ No.208946/16
CNR No. DLST010043352016
In the matter of:
1.Ashoka Enterprises (India) (Through its Partners) 1826, 1st Floor, Bhagirath Palace, Chandni Chowk, Delhi110006.
2. Sh. Sidhartha Ladha S/o Sh. Ranjit Kumar [Partner of M/s. Ashoka Enterprises (India)] 1826, 1st Floor, Bhagirath Palace, Chandni Chowk, Delhi110006.
2. Smt. Prabha Ladha S/o Sh. Ranjit Kumar [Partner of M/s. Ashoka Enterprises (India)] 1826, 1st Floor, Bhagirath Palace, Chandni Chowk, Delhi110006.
.......Plaintiffs VERSUS M/s Servotech Electricals Pvt. Ltd.
(Service Through any of its Directors/Principal Officer) Having Registered office at:
252A, Vijay Towers, Opposite Panchsheel Commercial Complex, Shahpur Jat, New Delhi110049.
.......Defendant
Date of Institution : 12.03.2012
Date reserved for judgment : Not reserved.
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 26.07.2018
CS DJ No.8946/16 Page No.1/ 20
Ashoka Enterprises (India) & Ors. v. M/s. Servotech Electricals Pvt. Ltd.
Suit for Recovery of Rs.52,16,324/ (Rupees Fifty Two Lacs Sixteen Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Four only) with Pendentelite & Future Interest.
J U D G M E N T:
1. The brief facts of the case as culled out from the pleadings of the parties are summarized as under:
1.1 Plaintiff no.1 is a registered Partnership firm having the registered office at the address mentioned above and plaintiff no.2 & 3 are its Partners whose names are also registered as Partners with the Registrar of Firms. The firm is engaged in the business of wholesale cables and other electrical items. On behalf of the plaintiff firm, the suit has been filed by plaintiff no.2 being Partner of the firm and who has been authorized in this regard 1.2 Defendant company is a Private Limited company which is a company engaged in the business of electrical contracts and have been purchasing electrical goods from the plaintiff no.1 firm. The dealings were such that the defendant company was sending purchase orders to the plaintiff for supply of goods and the plaintiff company was raising invoices. The plaintiff company was maintaining the running, mutual and current account with the defendant in its books of accounts and in the said account, the bills CS DJ No.8946/16 Page No.2/ 20 Ashoka Enterprises (India) & Ors. v. M/s. Servotech Electricals Pvt. Ltd.
sent to the defendant were debited and the payments received by the defendant were being credited. The last payment made by the defendant was on 15.02.2011 for Rs.27,500/ by way of cheque which was duly credited to the account of the defendant. As per the books of accounts, a principal sum of Rs.28,29,661/ was due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff firm in respect of various bills issued from time to time with regard to the supply of goods and payment against which was not made. The details of the said bills is under:
S. Purchase Order Date / Bill No. Amount (in Rs.) Form 'C' No. No. No. 1 SEPL/78/12 11.12.09/232 53,929/ HR06C4161356 2 SEPL/167/10 30.10.09/160 74,031/ HR06C4161356 3 18.08.08/365 89,193/ HR06C1457738 4 SEPL/111/08 19.08.08/358 1,75,301/ HR06C1457738 5 SEPL/151/06 10.07.08/281 1,27,418/ HR06C1457738 6 SEPL/61/08 06.08.08/343 1,89,901/ 0174814 (U.P.) 7 SEPL/242/05 27.05.08/201 62,090/ HR06C1461037 8 SEPL/108/06 14.06.08/238 1,30,209/ HR06C1461037 9 SEPL/116/06 17.06.08/242 52,914/ HR06C1461037 10 SEPL/150/06 23.06.08/250 72,155/ HR06C1461037 11 SEPL/198/12 10/0308/054 3,79,301/ HR06C1461036 *(balance from bill amount 30,30,463/) 12 SEPL/46/06 05.06.08/040 5,06,728/ Local Sale 13 SEPL/46/06 05.06.08/041 39,049/ Local Sale 14 SEPL/147/06 21.06.08/172 1,68,065/ Local Sale 15 SEPL/30/07 04.07.08/196 4,11,504/ Local Sale 16 SEPL/145/06 24.06.08/177 88,810/ Local Sale CS DJ No.8946/16 Page No.3/ 20 Ashoka Enterprises (India) & Ors. v. M/s. Servotech Electricals Pvt. Ltd. 17 SEPL/66/09 13.09.08/299 2,09,063/ Local Sale Total Principal Amount outstanding 28,29,661/ 1.3 On the said principal amount, interest amount of Rs.23,86,663/ calculated @24% per annum till 01.01.2012 has also accrued, thus making the outstanding dues to the tune of Rs.52,16,324/.
Demand for payment of the said amount was made to the defendant by way of legal notice(s) dated 14.02.2011 and 09.02.2012, however, the defendant failed to clear the outstanding dues.
1.4 The defendant company being a registered company, its books of accounts are duly audited by the Chartered Accountant and annual report thereof is also submitted to Income Tax and Registrar of company. The company in its balance sheet as on 31.03.2010, Profit & Loss A/c for the said year vide Director's report dated 04.09.2010, also confirmed and acknowledged the dues of the plaintiff firm in the schedule10 attached to the balance sheet under the heading 'current liabilities and provisions'. However, the defendant company did not intentionally mention the name of the plaintiff firm in its balance sheet or in the schedule attached to the balance sheet, with a view to wriggle from any admission of liability. The auditors report dated 04.09.2010 also confirms that proper CS DJ No.8946/16 Page No.4/ 20 Ashoka Enterprises (India) & Ors. v. M/s. Servotech Electricals Pvt. Ltd.
books of account as required by law, have been maintained by the company.
1.5 As despite admission of liability, the defendant failed to clear the outstanding dues towards the plaintiff firm. Hence, the present suit seeking recovery of the said sum along with pendentelite and future interest @24% per annum.
2. Written statement has been filed by the defendant denying the claim made by the plaintiff and interalia taking the following preliminary objections:
(i) That the suit is bad for misjoinder and nonjoinder of necessary parties;
(ii) The suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff has filed the present suit on the basis of forged and fabricated bills;
(iii) The plaint has not been signed and verified by a duly authorized person; and
(iv) The suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction.
2.1 On merits, the defendant company has admitted that there were business dealings with the plaintiff firm and the defendant made the last payment to the plaintiff of Rs.27,500/ by way of cheque. However, it is denied that the said payment was towards part CS DJ No.8946/16 Page No.5/ 20 Ashoka Enterprises (India) & Ors. v. M/s. Servotech Electricals Pvt. Ltd.
payment to the plaintiff. The averment of there being a running, mutual and current account between the parties, has been denied. It is stated that the payments were made billwise. The defendant company has made payments to the plaintiff from time to time as & when the goods were supplied and nothing is due to the plaintiff firm. The plaintiff firm has also failed to explain that against which purchase order the alleged amount is due upon the defendant. Further, the averment that the said dues towards the plaintiff firm have been shown in the balance sheet and Profit & Loss A/c for the year ending 31.03.2010 and also confirmed in the Director's Report dated 04.09.2010, has been denied.
Rest all the contrary averments including the receipt of legal notices, have been denied and dismissal of the suit has been sought.
3. Replication has been filed by the plaintiff reiterating the averments made in the plaint and denying the contrary averments made in the written statement filed by the defendant.
4. Upon completion of the pleadings, on 25.11.2013 the following issues were framed:
1. Are the plaintiffs entitled to a decree for recovery of Rs.52,16,324/ along with pendente lite and future interest CS DJ No.8946/16 Page No.6/ 20 Ashoka Enterprises (India) & Ors. v. M/s. Servotech Electricals Pvt. Ltd.
@24% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till realization? OPP
2. Is this suit barred by limitation? OPD
3. Have the Plaintiffs filed false and fabricated bills, as alleged by the Defendant? OPD
4. Is the suit bad for nonjoinder and misjoinder of necessary parties? OPD
5. Has the plaint been duly signed and verified by an authorised person. If not, the effect thereof? OPP
6. Has the suit been properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPP
7. Relief.
5. In support of his case, the plaintiff has examined 2 witness which are as under: (1) PW1 Mr. Siddharth Ladha one of the Partners of the plaintiff firm. In lieu of his examinationinchief he has deposed by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A & additional affidavit Ex.PW1/1A wherein he has reiterated the case set forth in the plaint and has relied upon the following documents:
i. Ex.PW1/1 - Copy of acknowledgment of Registration of Firms (OSR).
ii. Ex.PW1/2 - Copy of FormA (OSR).
iii. Ex.PW1/3 - Copy of FormV (OSR) iv. Ex.PW1/4 - Copy of Retirement Deed dated 30.03.2011 (OSR). CS DJ No.8946/16 Page No.7/ 20 Ashoka Enterprises (India) & Ors. v. M/s. Servotech Electricals Pvt. Ltd.
v. Ex.PW1/5 - Copy of Partnership Deed dated 01.04.2011 (OSR).
vi. Ex.PW1/6, Ex.PW1/8, Ex.PW1/10, Ex.PW1/12, Ex.PW1/14, Ex.PW1/15, Ex.PW1/17, Ex.PW1/19, Ex.PW1/21, Ex.PW1/23, Ex.PW1/25, Ex.PW1/28, Ex.PW1/30, Ex.PW1/32, Ex.PW1/34, Ex.PW1/36 & Ex.PW1/37 - Invoices/ Bills raised against different purchase orders.
vii.Ex.PW1/7, Ex.PW1/9, Ex.PW1/11, Ex.PW1/13, Ex.PW1/16, Ex.PW1/18, Ex.PW1/20, Ex.PW1/22, Ex.PW1/24, Ex.PW1/26, Ex.PW1/27, Ex.PW1/29, Ex.PW1/31, Ex.PW1/33 & Ex.PW1/35
- Purchase Orders.
viii. Ex.PW1/38 - Certificate U/Sec.65A and 65B of Indian Evidence Act.
ix. Ex.PW1/39 - Another Certificate U/Sec.65A and 65B of Indian Evidence Act.
x. Ex.PW1/40 - Legal Notice dated 14.02.2011.
xi. Ex.PW1/41 - Original postal receipts xii.Ex.PW1/42 - Proof of delivery.
xiii.Ex.PW1/43 - Legal Notice dated 09.02.2012 xiv.Ex.PW1/44 - Original postal receipts.
xv. Ex.PW1/45 (Colly) - Copies of Sales Tax forms. xvi.Ex.PW1/46 - Copy of balance sheet as on 31.03.2010, Profit & Loss Account and Directors Report dated 04.09.2010. (2) PW2 Mr. R. K. Saini - Sr. Technical Assistant from the office of Registrar of Companies. He has produced the certified CS DJ No.8946/16 Page No.8/ 20 Ashoka Enterprises (India) & Ors. v. M/s. Servotech Electricals Pvt. Ltd.
copies of Form23AC and Balance Sheets for the financial year ending 31.03.2009, 31.03.2010, 31.03.2011, 31.03.2012, 31.03.2013, 31.03.2014 and 31.03.2015. The same are Ex.PW2/1 to Ex.PW2/7 respectively. The Certificate U/Sec.65B of The Indian Act is Ex.PW2/8.
Both the witnesses were crossexamined by Ld. Defence Counsel whereafter PE was closed.
6. In the defence evidence, only one witness has been examined namely Sh. Arunava Das - Managing Director of the defendant company. In lieu of his examinationinchief he has deposed by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/A and has relied upon Board Resolution dated 03.08.2011 authorizing him to represent the company in the legal proceedings, is Ex.DW1/1.
The witness was crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff whereafter DE was closed.
7. Final arguments addressed by Ld. Counsel Sh. Sanjiv Bahl for the plaintiff and Ld. Counsel Sh. Manish Rai for defendants were heard and record carefully perused.
8. Discussion on Issues:
ISSUE No.5 : Has the plaint been duly signed and verified by an CS DJ No.8946/16 Page No.9/ 20 Ashoka Enterprises (India) & Ors. v. M/s. Servotech Electricals Pvt. Ltd. authorised person. If not, the effect thereof? OPP Defendant in his written statement has taken an objection that the plaint has not been signed and verified by a duly authorized person and as such the suit is liable to be dismissed. However, apart from this averment he had not detailed as to how the authorization is lacking.
Now, the plaintiff is a partnership firm. The provision regarding institution of suit by a partnership firm or against a firm is contained in Sec.69 of The Partnership Act,1932 which reads as under:
"69. Effect of nonregistration - (1) No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by this Act shall be instituted in any Court by or on behalf of any person suing as a partner in a firm against the firm or any person alleged to be or to have been a partner in the firm unless the firm is registered and the person suing is or has been shown in the Register of Firms as a partner in the firm. "
Thus, a bare reading of the said provision brings out that in case where the partnership firm is a plaintiff, the firm should be a registered one and the name of the person suing should be shown in the Registrar of Firms as a Partner.
Reverting to the facts of the present case, perusal of the plaint, the verification clause and the affidavit annexed with it shows that on behalf of the firm the verification has been done by Ms. Prabha Ladha. Further, CS DJ No.8946/16 Page No.10/ 20 Ashoka Enterprises (India) & Ors. v. M/s. Servotech Electricals Pvt. Ltd. two affidavits have been filed with the plaint - one by Ms. Prabha Ladha and another by Sh. Siddharth Ladha. Sh. Siddharth Ladha has also stepped into the witness box as PW1 and has proved the registration of the firm vide Ex.PW1/1. Further, as per FormA of Registrar of Firms which is Ex.PW1/2, the name of Ms. Prabha Ladha has been shown as a Partner of the firm. Thus, in terms of the mandate of Sec.69 of the Act, Ms. Prabha Ladha was duly competent and authorized to file the present suit.
Issue accordingly stand decided in favour of the plaintiff. ISSUE No.4 : Is the suit bad for nonjoinder and misjoinder of necessary parties? OPD Again this issue was framed upon the preliminary objection of the defendant that the suit is bad for misjoinder and nonjoinder of proper and necessary parties. However, except for this bald averment, defendant has not stated anything as to who were the necessary parties which were required to be joined or otherwise who were the parties who should not have been arrayed.
Perusal of the memo of parties shows that the plaintiff no.1 is a firm and plaintiff no.2 & 3 are stated to be its Partners. Now, the plaintiff no.3 namely Ms. Prabha Ladha, as discussed in issue no.5, has been shown in the Registrar of Firms as a Partner of the firm. Further, as regards CS DJ No.8946/16 Page No.11/ 20 Ashoka Enterprises (India) & Ors. v. M/s. Servotech Electricals Pvt. Ltd. plaintiff no.2 Sh. Siddharth Ladha, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs has submitted that Sh. Siddharth Ladha had also become the Partner in the firm later on. Thereafter, the two earlier Partners namely Sh. Rajesh Kumar Ladha and Smt. Pushpa Ladha had retired. The Retirement Deed had been proved as Ex.PW1/4. A fresh Partnership Deed was thereafter executed on 01.04.2000 between plaintiff no.2 and plaintiff no.3. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs has also submitted that after plaintiff no.2 had become a Partner, the same was intimated to the Registrar of Firms and his name was entered into Form 'C'. The same has also been placed on record by the plaintiffs as per which he has been shown as a Partner of firm.
Further, regarding the defendant, it being a Private Limited Company, is a separate legal entity. As per O.29 CPC, in a suit against a Corporation any pleading on behalf of a Corporation can be signed & verified by a Secretary or by any Director of the company and the summons issued against a Corporation can be served upon the Secretary or any Director of the Corporation. Thus, the Corporation can be sued through its Directors. Hence, there is no nonjoinder or misjoinder of parties.
Issue accordingly stand decided in favour of plaintiffs. ISSUE No.6 : Has the suit been properly valued for the purposes of CS DJ No.8946/16 Page No.12/ 20 Ashoka Enterprises (India) & Ors. v. M/s. Servotech Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Court fee and jurisdiction? OPP By way of the present suit, plaintiffs have sought decree for recovery of Rs.52,16,324/. As per Sec.7 of The Court Fees Act, 1870 in money suits the suit has to be valued according to the amount claimed. In the valuation paragraph of the plaint, the plaintiffs have categorically stated that the suit has been valued for the sum claimed in the suit and upon which a court fees of Rs.54,500/ has been paid. Thus, the suit has been properly valued as per law.
Issue accordingly stand decided in favour of the plaintiffs. ISSUE No.1 : Are the plaintiffs entitled to a decree for recovery of Rs.52,16,324/ along with pendente lite and future interest @24% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till realization? OPP and ISSUE No.2 : Is this suit barred by limitation? OPD and ISSUE No.3 : Have the Plaintiffs filed false and fabricated bills, as alleged by the Defendant? OPD All the three issues are taken up together in as much as they are interconnected and a common discussion shall suffice.
The crux of the plaintiffs' case is that upon the purchase orders placed by the defendant company, the plaintiff no.1 firm had delivered goods to the defendant company and had raised invoices. There was a CS DJ No.8946/16 Page No.13/ 20 Ashoka Enterprises (India) & Ors. v. M/s. Servotech Electricals Pvt. Ltd. mutual running current account between the parties and onaccount payments were made time to time by the defendant company. The last payment made by the defendant company was on 15.02.2011 for a sum of Rs.27,500/. As per the books of accounts of the plaintiff no.1 firm, there was a debit balance of Rs.28,29,661/ in the account of the defendant. The plaintiffs have given details of all the 17 purchase orders and bills which remain unpaid/ partly unpaid. They have further stated that out of the 17 bills issued by them, for 11 bills the defendant company had also issued Form 'C'. The purchase orders and the bills have been exhibited as Ex.PW1/6 to Ex.PW1/37 and the statement of account showing the outstanding balance is Ex.PW1/38.
On the other hand, the defence taken by the defendant are (i) that there was no amount outstanding against them as they had already cleared all the bills; (ii) there was no mutual running current account between the parties and the payments were made billwise to the plaintiffs; (iii) the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by limitation; and (iv) the bills filed by the plaintiffs are forged & fabricated.
Now, analyzing the aspect of limitation first, plaintiffs have categorically stated in para 4 of their plaint that the last payment made by the defendant of Rs.27,500/ was on 15.02.2011. In response to the said CS DJ No.8946/16 Page No.14/ 20 Ashoka Enterprises (India) & Ors. v. M/s. Servotech Electricals Pvt. Ltd. para, the defendant in his written statement though has admitted that the last payment made by them was of Rs.27,500/ and was made on 15.02.2011 but has denied the same to be a partpayment made to the plaintiffs. That being the answer of the defendant, it was incumbent upon the defendant to explain that if the said was not a partpayment then on which account the said payment was made. However, the defendant neither in his written statement nor by way of evidence has specified the reason for said payment.
Also, the 17 bills raised by the plaintiffs have not been disputed by the defendant. Perusal of the bills makes it apparent that neither of the said bills was for the said amount. Also, as per the statement of account prior to the payment of Rs.27,500/ there were three more payments - two payments of Rs.27,500/ each and one payment of Rs.50,000/. As already observed above, that none of the bills is for the said amounts. Thus, considering the bills raised by the plaintiffs and the ledger account of the defendant in the books of the plaintiffs, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that there was a running account between the parties.
Further, in so far as the aspect of limitation in cases of running account is concerned, I am fortified by the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bharath Skins Corporation Vs. Taneja Skins Company Pvt. Limited, (2012) 186 DLT 290 (DB), wherein the aspect of CS DJ No.8946/16 Page No.15/ 20 Ashoka Enterprises (India) & Ors. v. M/s. Servotech Electricals Pvt. Ltd. limitation in cases of running and current account was discussed in detail and it was held that in suits for recovery of money due on running and current but nonmutual account, the Article 113 of The Limitation Act, 1963 shall apply and thus the limitation period would commence from the date of last payment made by the defendant.
In the present case, the date of last payment being 15.02.2011 and the suit having been filed on 12.03.2012, the same is clearly within limitation.
Dehors the aforesaid, the last nail in the coffin of the defendant's case was drilled by the defendant himself in a manner in as much as the defendant - being a Private Limited Company, had filed the statutory return/ balance sheet with the Registrar of Companies wherein the defendant had admitted that they owe a sum of Rs.17,25,000/ to the plaintiffs. Obviously, it needs no gainsaying that if the said sum is reflected or admitted in the balance sheet, then the question of limitation has to be computed from the said date. On this aspect I also rely upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bhajan Singh Samra v. Wimpy International, 185 (2011) DLT 428 wherein it was held that admission of a debit either in a balance sheet or in the form of a letter would amount to an acknowledgment, extending the period of limitation. Sec.18(1) of The Limitation Act, 1963 incorporates the said principle. CS DJ No.8946/16 Page No.16/ 20 Ashoka Enterprises (India) & Ors. v. M/s. Servotech Electricals Pvt. Ltd.
Thus, in view of the aforesaid, the question of limitation in the present facts does not arise.
Coming to the second defence that the bills raised by the plaintiffs are false & fabricated. The defendant in his written statement has vaguely averred that the bills have been forged & fabricated. Thus, necessarily the onus to prove that the said bills were forged & fabricated, was upon the defendant. However, apart from making this bald averment, the defendant has not led even an iota of evidence which could even remotely suggest that the bills are forged & fabricated.
Even during crossexamination DW1 was asked to specify the bills which were forged & fabricated, to which the witness categorically replied that he cannot say as to which bills are forged & fabricated. This deposition of DW1 read in light of the fact that no evidence has been led by defendant on this aspect, clearly clinches the issue in favour of the plaintiffs.
Additionally, I may also note that forgery by itself implies a criminal act. Even if I take it in the context in which it has been used in the present case - that the plaintiff has manipulated/ fabricated bills or created false entries to create liability upon the defendant, then in such a scenario defendant would have vociferously protested on such aspect. However, the response of the defendant in the pleadings is tepid or muted. This by CS DJ No.8946/16 Page No.17/ 20 Ashoka Enterprises (India) & Ors. v. M/s. Servotech Electricals Pvt. Ltd. itself shows that this defence carries little weight or otherwise has been taken simply to deny the case of the plaintiffs. Needless to state that no criminal complaint has been lodged against the plaintiffs. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the defendant has not at all been able to prove that the bills on which the plaintiffs have based the present suit, are false & fabricated.
Now, coming to the core issue regarding the entitlement of the plaintiffs for the sum claimed in the suit. As already stated above, the suit is based upon the invoices raised by the plaintiff firm against the goods delivered to the defendant. The plaintiff firm was maintaining a running account of the defendant in its books of account as per which the sum outstanding against the defendant as on 15.02.2011 is Rs.28,29,661/.
On the other hand, the defence taken by the defendant company is that they have already cleared the payment towards these bills and there is no amount outstanding against them. During crossexamination DW1 deposed that the defendant company has also maintained the records relating to the dealings with the plaintiffs, though their company has not filed the said records in the present case.
Now, the defendant has not placed on record its statement of account showing dealing with the plaintiff firm though, admittedly, the record whereof was duly maintained by their company. Had the same CS DJ No.8946/16 Page No.18/ 20 Ashoka Enterprises (India) & Ors. v. M/s. Servotech Electricals Pvt. Ltd. been filed, it would have clearly reflected the payments made by them to the plaintiff firm with regard to the goods purchased by them. Also, the law on this aspect is well settled that where a party, who is in possession of an evidence, does not produce the same, the court is justified in drawing an adverse inference against that party.
Further, the plaintiffs have also examined a witness from Office of Registrar of Companies, who has proved the balance sheets of the defendant company for the financial year ending 2009 to 2015 and the same are Ex.PW2/1 to Ex.PW2/7. As per the balance sheet for the financial year ending on 31.03.2012, in the list of 'Sundry Creditors for material/supplies', the name of plaintiff firm has been shown at serial no.16 and the amount outstanding to them has been shown as Rs.17,25,000/. Thus, this admission of liability in the balance sheet in itself falsifies the stand of the defendant that they do not owe any amount to the plaintiff firm.
Thus, keeping in view the evidence led by the plaintiffs in the form of the bills issued by them duly admitted by the defendant, the statement of account reflecting the principal sum of Rs.28,29,661/ due from the defendant, the nonproduction of the books/statement of accounts by the defendant company and finally the admission of liability by the defendant as shown in balance sheet dated 31.03.2012, all cumulatively goes on to CS DJ No.8946/16 Page No.19/ 20 Ashoka Enterprises (India) & Ors. v. M/s. Servotech Electricals Pvt. Ltd. prove that there was a sum of Rs.28,29,661/ outstanding and due from the defendant for the goods supplied by the plaintiffs.
Now as regards the interest component, the plaintiff firm has calculated interest on the principal sum @24% per annum. As it is a case of business dealings between the parties, I feel that the interest @24% per annum is on a higher side. Keeping in view the overall facts & circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if interest @ 12% per annum is awarded to the plaintiffs on the principal sum of Rs.28,29,661/ from the date of first legal notice i.e. 14.02.2011 till recovery thereof.
Issues accordingly stand decided.
9. Relief:
In view of my discussion on aforesaid issues, the suit of the plaintiff stands decreed. The plaintiff is held entitled to recover a sum of Rs.28,29,661/ from the defendant along with interest @9% per annum w.e.f. 14.02.2011 till recovery thereof. Cost of the suit is also awarded.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly and file be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the Open Court (Shunali Gupta)
Dated: 26.07.2018 Digitally signed
Addl. District Judge(06)
SHUNALI
by SHUNALI
GUPTA South Distt. Saket Courts,
New Delhi.
Date:
GUPTA 2018.07.27
11:57:10
+0530
CS DJ No.8946/16 Page No.20/ 20
Ashoka Enterprises (India) & Ors. v. M/s. Servotech Electricals Pvt. Ltd.