Delhi District Court
M/S Banwari Lal Arora And Sons vs Trovica Foods And Beverages Pvt Ltd And ... on 9 December, 2024
DLCT010013072024
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV KUMAR AGGARWAL :
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL) -01 : CENTRAL, TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS (Comm.) No. 172/24
Banwari Lal Arora and Sons
Through its Partner
Sh. Anil Kumar Arora
being represented by SPA Holder
Sh. Aditya Arora
Add : 202, Library Road, Azad Market,
Delhi-110006
.......PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
Trovica Foods and Beverages Private Limited
Through its Directors
Mr. Aditya & Ms. Ananya Sharma
Having its registered office :
Plot No. 13, Basement Floor,
Arihant Nagar, Pole no. K-520
New Delhi-110026
email : [email protected]
email : [email protected]
Also at :
E-47, Sector 40, Gautam Buddha Nagar,
Noida, Uttar Pradesh,
India-201301
.... DEFENDANT
CS (Comm) No. 172/24 Page No. 1 of 19
Date of institution : 30.01.2024
Date of reserving Judgment : 27.11.2024
Date of decision : 09.12.2024
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs. 9,14,623/-.
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the present suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 9,14,623/- alongwith Interest.
2. Brief facts as stated by the plaintiff in the plaint are :
i. That the plaintiff company is a partnership firm duly registered with the Registrar of Firms, Government of NCT of Delhi and Sh. Anil Kumar Arora and Smt. Anita Arora are presently the partners of the plaintiff firm and the present suit has been filed by Sh. Aditya Arora, SPA executed by Sh. Anil Arora.
ii. That the defendant company is engaged in the business of trading and selling food products and other consumable products and it authorized the plaintiff to act as the company's carrying & forwarding agent (C&F Agent) for carrying, storing and forwarding in the state of Delhi, Haryana and National Capital Region for receiving, warehousing, safe storage and dispatch of defendant's goods to various dealers retailers, wholesalers, super stockiest under the control and direction of the designated official of defendant.
iii. That as per appointment of plaintiff firm as C&F agent, the CS (Comm) No. 172/24 Page No. 2 of 19 plaintiff was required to provide necessary infrastructure like safe storage, staff, proper distribution team, online facilities for business and the plaintiff was required to sell goods, as per instructions of the defendant company and believing on defendant's assurance, plaintiff had deposited Rs. 10 lakhs on 22.03.2021 as security with defendant against which defendant agreed to pay 8% p.a. interest to the plaintiff.
iv. That defendant was liable to pay an amount of Rs. 80,000/- towards interest against the amount of Rs. 10 lakhs in financial year 2021-22, however, defendant deposited Rs. 36,000/- on 20.04.2022 for financial year 2021-22 and an amount of Rs. 4,000/- was deposited in the TDS account of plaintiff. As such, defendant deposited only half amount towards interest for the financial year 2021-22.
v. That similarly in financial year 2022-23, defendant was liable to pay an amount of Rs. 80,000/- towards interest, however, no amount was deposited by defendant.
vi. That due to defendant's failure in making payments towards interest, it was mutually agreed that the arrangement of carrying and forwarding agreement shall be ceased to operate between plaintiff and defendant and the defendant through its officers sent an email on 18.10.2022 to plaintiff that defendant shall be collecting its entire stock of 236 cartoons from plaintiff's godown at Swaroop Nagar CS (Comm) No. 172/24 Page No. 3 of 19 and also assured to refund security deposit of Rs. 10 lakh. Though on 19.10.2022 defendant collected 236 cartoons of goods from plaintiff's godown but did not return the full security amount and only Rs. 2,50,00/- was returned by defendant on 17.02.2023.
vii. That since the defendant did not return the principal balance with interest, the plaintiff sent legal notice dated 15.09.2023 demanding the same within 07 days but defendant did not make the payment, thus, defendant is liable to pay Rs. 40,000/- as interest for financial year 2021-
22, Rs. 80,000/- as interest for financial year 2022-23, principal balance amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- & Rs. 44,623/- as pre-suit interest at 8% per annum, totaling Rs. 9,14,623/-. Hence, the present suit.
3. Summons of the suit were issued to the defendant and defendant contested the suit by filing written statement. In WS, defendant has though admitted that plaintiff was appointed as C & F and deposited Rs. 10,00,000/- as security but denied the other contents of plaint. It is stated by defendant that :
(i) That the rate of interest 4% per annum on the security amount was agreed and the defendant paid interest accordingly. Further, defendant has been paying the margin commission, freight, extra charges, loading and unloading charges and the interest 4% p.a. as and when applicable to the plaintiff.CS (Comm) No. 172/24 Page No. 4 of 19
(ii) That the plaintiff is trying to take wrongful advantage of the demise of Sh. Anil Gupta, Management Head of defendant and the entire correspondence of plaintiff with defendant was relied upon the shoulders of late Sh. Anil Gupta.
(iii) That the plaintiff failed to fulfill its obligation as the goods returned by the plaintiff to the defendant were dilapidated and obliterated by rat bites which were evident from looking at the boxes that were carrying the goods consequently being perishable goods.
(iv) That defendant company on promise kept their goods as storage and asked to follow the First in First Out Method as goods are fast moving consumer goods having a short expiry and shelf life but plaintiff failed upon his duties
(v) That plaintiff has returned approximately 16 boxes & 236 cartons (Chocolates & Candies) which the plaintiff was obligated to maintain and store meticulously, as per the presentation of the plaintiff, but deliver the boxes of goods in dilapidated and obliterated by rat bites and was in unacceptable condition, making it a huge loss being suffered by the defendant and despite informing and sending photograph refused to take the liability.
(vi) The return of security of Rs. 10 Lakh was to be decided upon the condition of returned goods but plaintiff never agreed and signed agreement upon which CS (Comm) No. 172/24 Page No. 5 of 19 contingencies were decided but defendant has already paid Rs. 250000/- in goods faith and not liable to return balance amount.
4. Plaintiff has filed replication to the said WS in which it is denied that plaintiff has returned the goods in unacceptable condition as the same were dilapidated and obliterated by rat bites. It is stated that said goods were returned by the plaintiff on 19.10.2022 and the defendant never raised any dispute earlier regarding the quality or quantity of the goods and the defendant first time raised dispute such nature in his WS. It is further stated that no debit note was raised by the defendant for the said transaction and no photos of the damaged goods have ever been shared by the defendant with the plaintiff. Thus, defendant needs to strictly proved the said facts. It is further stated that qua the first photograph, defendant has merely filed a photo of toffee box appx. value of Rs. 100-200 wherein the sticker of such toffee box appx. of Rs. 1-2 is torn which could have been replaced and used in market. Further, defendant has never shared such photograph with the plaintiff and the said photo was taken when the goods were returned by the plaintiff. It is further stated qua second, third and fourth photographs, that the defendant has merely filed a photo of carton boxes wherein only cardboard box is damaged and the goods are intact which could easily be used in market after replacing the carton box, which might have an appx. value of Rs. 50/-, therefore, it cannot be said that the said photos were taken when the goods were returned by the plaintiff. Thus, it is prayed CS (Comm) No. 172/24 Page No. 6 of 19 that WS of defendant be rejected and a decree be passed in favour of plaintiff.
5. Both parties have filed affidavits qua admission / denial of documents, in which they denied the documents filed by opposite party.
6. After completion of the pleadings, the following issues were framed vide order dated 20.05.2024 :-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of the suit amount of Rs. 9,14,623/- ? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so at what rate and for which period ? OPP
3. Relief.
7. In order to prove its case, the plaintiff has only examined one witness i.e. Sh. Aditya Arora its AR as PW1, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A.
8. On the other hand, in order to deny the claim of plaintiff, defendant has also examined one witness i.e. Sh. Veerpal, its AR as DW1, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW1/A.
9. Final arguments were heard through hybrid mode from Sh. Devansh Dua & Sh. Rishabh Gupta, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and Sh. Himanshu Sharma & Sh. Naresh Kaushik, Ld. Counsel for defendant.
10. I have considered the arguments and have gone through the record.
CS (Comm) No. 172/24 Page No. 7 of 1911. My issue wise findings are as under :-
Issue No. 1 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of the suit amount of Rs. 9,14,623/- ? OPP
12. The onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff. As stated above, in order to prove the same, plaintiff has examined only one witness i.e. Sh. Aditya Arora, its AR as PW1, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A and almost repeated the same contents as stated in the plaint, therefore, same are not repeated. He has also proved the following documents :-
1. Form-B showing the registration of plaintiff firm is Ex. PW1/1
2. Form-A showing the initial number of partners is Ex. PW1/2
3. Form-C showing the deletion of two partners is Ex. PW1/3 (OSR).
4. SPA executed by partners of plaintiff firm in favour of Sh. Aditya Arora is Ex. PW1/4.
5. Aadhaar Card is Ex. PW1/5.
6. Printout qua the master data of defendant company is Ex. PW1/6 .
7. Email dt. 14.06.2021 exchanged between plaintiff and defendant with agreement for C&F Agency is Ex. PW1/7
8. Bank account statement of plaintiff's A/c No. 00144011000199 from period 20.03.2021 to 22.03.2021 and from 17.02.2023 to 17.02.2023 is now Ex. PW1/8A & Ex. PW1/8B respectively .
9. Letter dated 16.01.2024 issued from PNB is Ex. PW1/9.
10. Ledger account of plaintiff qua the defendant is Ex. PW1/10.
11. Printout of email dt. 04.04.2022 issued by defendant sharing ledger account of defendant to plaintiff is Ex. PW1/11
12. Printout of emails dt. 18.10.2022 and 19.10.2022 exchanged between defendant and plaintiff is Ex. PW1/12 (Colly)
13. Ledger account maintained by defendant & sent to plaintiff with CS (Comm) No. 172/24 Page No. 8 of 19 email dt. 04.04.2022 is Ex. PW1/13.
14. Copy of Independent Auditors' report dt. 28.09.2022 alongwith copy of balancesheet is Ex. 1/14.
15. Printout of emails dt. 26.10.2022, 02.01.2023, 16.01.2023, 27.01.2023 & 13.03.2023 exchanged between plaintiff and defendant is Ex. PW1/15 (Colly)
16. Copy of Whatsapp messages sent by plaintiff to defendant's mobile no. 9910494180 is Ex. PW1/16 (Colly)
17. Legal notice dated 15.09.2023 alongwith its courier receipt & tracking report are Ex. PW1/17 to Ex. PW1/19 respectively.
18. Printout of email dt. 20.09.2023 sent by plaintiff's lawyer to defendant is Ex. PW1/20
19. Copy of pre-institution mediation form is Ex. PW1/21 and non-starter report dt. 11.01.2024 is Ex. PW1/22.
20. Certificate / affidavit under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act and affidavit u/o XI Rule 6(3) CPC are Ex. PW 1/23 & Ex. PW1/24 respectively.
13. In his cross examination, PW1 has stated that his godown is located at ground floor, near Azad Palace, Swarooop Nagar, Delhi-110042. Initially he had conversation regarding C&F with Mr. Aditya, Ms. Ananya Sharma & Mr. Anil Gupta. He had agreement with the defendant regarding C&F which was exchanged on email but same was not signed by any of the party. He voluntarily stated that the agreement was received by him vide defendant's company email for C&F and thereafter, he after correcting the same, sent the same to defendant company. He had changed the rate of interest from 4% to 8 % and also changed the margin and freight percentage and the said changes were made CS (Comm) No. 172/24 Page No. 9 of 19 after telephonic conversation. The agreement was sent without signing by him through email but voluntarily stated that the said agreement was to be recorded on the letter head of the defendant company and that is why he did not sign the same. He further deposed that plaintiff has registration with GST and Rs. 10 lakh was paid by plaintiff prior to receiving of the agreement from defendant through email. He does not have any proof i.e. photographs or videography regarding safe storage of the goods and Vol. as same is not required. He several times made complaint to the defendant company for making payment through whatsapp & email after dispatching of the goods and the goods were returned back to the defendant on 18-19.10.2022. He further deposed that defendant has sent an email to the plaintiff that they will pull back appx. 236 cartons from the plaintiff and they will refund Rs. 10 lakhs deposited by the plaintiff. He further deposed that whatsapp conversation Ex. PW1/16 (Colly) is of him and Sh. Aditya. He admitted that in one of the conversations dt. 10.10.2022 he had demanded to release Rs. 5 lakh from the security deposit. He denied the suggestion that he demanded Rs. 5 lakhs as it was agreed to take the said amount as full and final amount due to damage of the goods but voluntarily stated that said conversation was prior to the date of email received from defendant regarding returning of the goods which was received on 19.10.2022. He admitted that none of the whatsapp conversation Ex. PW1/16 (Colly), the exact amount of Rs. 10 lakh is mentioned. He further deposed that Rs. 2,50,000/- was returned CS (Comm) No. 172/24 Page No. 10 of 19 by defendant in February, 2023 and there was no whatsapp conversation between him and defendant from 12 October, 2022 to 11 January, 2023. He denied the suggestion that defendant has never agreed to the changed condition of agreement which was sent by him through email that is why defendant never signed on the said agreement. He denied the suggestion that he knows that the goods which were returned to the defendant were damaged, expired and rat bitten and could not be used due to health hazard. He denied the suggestion that due to said reason, he agrees to release of Rs. 5 lakhs as security through telephonic conversations in stead of Rs. 10 lakhs.
14. On the other hand, in order to rebut the case of plaintiff, defendant has examined only one witness i.e. Sh. Veerpal, its AR as DW1, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW1/A and deposed that the defendant had agreed to pay 4% interest on the security amount and had paid Rs. 40,000/- as interest for the financial year 2021-22 and further stated that he has already paid amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- in good faith. He further stated that he on promise of plaintiff kept their goods as storage and asked to follow the first in first out method as they are fast moving consumer goods (FIFO) having a short expiry on shelf life with the plaintiff terribly failed upon rendering all the duties as per the verbal and mutually consented terms. He has also relied upon the following documents :-
1. Board resolution dt. 11.03.2024 is Ex. DW1/1 (Objected by plaintiff since original register of minutes of meeting not produced).
2. Color photographs of goods returned by plaintiff to defendant is CS (Comm) No. 172/24 Page No. 11 of 19 marked as Mark-A (Colly)
3. Copy of ledger of defendant for financial year 2021-22 is marked as Mark-B
4. Copy of calculation sheet is marked as Mark-C
5. Copy of non-starter report is already Ex. PW1/22.
15. In his cross examination, DW1 has deposed that he is working in the company since year 2018 and was appointed as helper and promoted in year 2020 and presently, he is the supervisor of the defendant company. Mr. Aditya Sharma was the owner of the company and Ms. Ananya Sharma was having 10% equity in defendant company and Sh. Ravi Shankar was the HR of the defendant at the relevant time. At present, Mr. Ravi Shankar and Mr. Mukesh are the Directors of defendant company. He further depose that defendant used to keep its goods in the ware house of plaintiff and plaintiff company was wholesaler of defendant goods and they used to sell the same to retailers. He denied the suggestion that plaintiff is not the wholesaler and also denied that plaintiff used to supply the goods to the party as directed by the defendant and for doing this service plaintiff used to have some commission from the sale sides. He admitted that his only duty is to look after the warehouse of defendant. He does not maintain the stock register of defendant. He was in the group of Mr. Vishnu, who used to maintain the stock register and he told him that plaintiff did not make delivery of goods to parties in First In First Out basis. He explained the same that whatever goods defendant gives to plaintiff to store in its warehouse and then again on another date goods are store then the goods which have CS (Comm) No. 172/24 Page No. 12 of 19 been stored w earlier has to first taken out by plaintiff from its ware house. He further deposed that he cannot produce the said stock register as Mr. Vishnu has taken the same with him. He further deposed that he does not know present whereabouts of Mr. Vishnu. He further deposed that no police complaint was lodged against Mr. Vishnu for taking the stock register with him. He further deposed that photographs Mark-A (Colly) were taken by Mr. Vishnu but he does not know when he taken the said photographs. He further deposed that said photographs were shown to him by Mr. Vishnu in his mobile in year 2024. He further deposed that he does not know whether the email ID :
[email protected] is of defendant or not. He depose that his boss have sent email regarding regarding goods being defective but he do not remember the date.
16. It is argued by learned counsel for plaintiff that from the WS itself, it is evident that plaintiff has given Rs. 10 lakhs as security amount but defendant returned only Rs. 2,50,000/-, hence it is proved that Rs. 7,50,000/- is balance as security amount. He further argued that it is proved from the testimony of plaintiff that defendant was required to pay 8% p.a. interest on the security amount of Rs. 10 lakh i.e. Rs. 80,000/- per year and defendant has only paid Rs. 40,000/- towards interest for FY 2021-22. He further argued that from the testimony of defendant it is also proved that only Rs. 2,50,000/- was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff and Rs. 7,50,000/- is still due and further, defendant has not paid full interest for FY 2021-22 and Rs. 80,000/- towards CS (Comm) No. 172/24 Page No. 13 of 19 interest for FY 2022-23, therefore, defendant is liable to pay Rs. 8,70,000/- as outstanding amount + Rs. 44,623/- as pre-suit interest on the same. Hence, he prays for decree of the said amount against the defendant.
17. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for defendant has argued that plaintiff did not produce any document that defendant has ever agreed to pay 8% p.a. interest on the security amount, thus, defendant is not liable to pay interest @8% p.a. on the security amount but only liable to pay @4% p.a. as consented while appointing the plaintiff as the company's carrying & forwarding agent (C&F Agent) for carrying, storing and forwarding the goods to various dealers & wholesalers. He further argued that it was the duty of plaintiff to maintain the goods in good condition and further, the plaintiff did not follow First In First Out Method (FIFO method) as instructed by the defendant, due to which the goods returned by the defendant was expired and due to which defendant suffered losses, thus, the plaintiff is not entitled any amount.
18. I have considered the submissions and gone through the record.
19. From the testimonies of plaintiff's as well as defendant's witnesses, following undisputed facts are emerged (1) defendant appointed the plaintiff as the company's carrying & forwarding agent (C&F Agent) for carrying, storing and forwarding in the state of Delhi, Haryana and National Capital Region for receiving, CS (Comm) No. 172/24 Page No. 14 of 19 warehousing, safe storage and dispatch of defendant's goods to various dealers retailers, wholesalers & super stockiest.
(2) the plaintiff has deposited Rs. 10 lakhs as security amount with the defendant (3) no formal contract between the plaintiff and the defendant agreed about the terms and conditions (4) defendant has paid Rs. 2,50,000/- from the security amount of Rs. 10 lakhs (5) defendant has paid Rs. 40,000/- as interest for the FY 2021-22, besides this no interest has been paid by the defendant to the plaintiff.
20. As evident from the pleadings and evidence of both plaintiff and defendant witnesses, there are only two disputes between the plaintiff and the defendant (A) whether the returned goods, which were earlier deposited by the defendant to the plaintiff, was not properly stored by the plaintiff and same was in damaged or in unacceptable condition as the same were dilapidated and obliterated by rat bites and further, some of the goods were already expired when the same was returned. (B) Whether the interest on the security amount is 8% p.a. or 4% p.a.
21. As far as first issue whether defendant is not liable to return security amount, as the goods returned by the plaintiff was in unacceptable condition as the same were dilapidated & obliterated by rat bites and some of the goods were expired as CS (Comm) No. 172/24 Page No. 15 of 19 plaintiff did not follow FIFO model and, due to which defendant suffered losses is concerned, in my view, the onus is upon the defendant to prove the said fact. Though DW1 examined on behalf of defendant has deposed that the returned goods were damaged and proved the photographs Mark-A (Colly) to prove the same but on perusal of said photographs Mark-A I found that these are four photographs. One photo is of jar containing toffees and other are cartons. First of all, these photograph are not proved as per Indian Evidence Act / BSA as neither the person i.e. Vishnu who took photograph was examined nor the 63 BSA certificate was produced as required to prove electronic record. Even otherwise from these photographs, it is not clear whether these are same goods which were deposited by the defendant to the plaintiff or that it returned the same on the condition as there is no batch number is visible. Further, even these photographs were allegedly taken by Mr. Vishnu, the earlier employee of defendant but said witness did not come to depose in the witness box. Further, defendant did not produce any complaint written by the defendant to the plaintiff prior to filing of the suit that the goods returned by the plaintiff to the defendant was damaged or expired. DW1 did not state that the goods were returned to him or in his presence. Admittedly, DW1 has not deposed that he himself went to the warehouse of the plaintiff to collect the goods on behalf of defendant. He failed to produce any document that the person, who collected the returned goods, gave anything in writing to the plaintiff that the returned goods were damaged or expired. Hence, CS (Comm) No. 172/24 Page No. 16 of 19 I do not find testimony of DW1 reliable that plaintiff has returned dilapidated goods to the defendant. As far as testimony of plaintiff witness / PW1 is concerned, PW1 in his cross examination has categorically stated that plaintiff taken due care for safe storage of all goods handed over by the defendant. He denied that FIFO method was not followed. No document has been shown to him to prove that plaintiff has taken out any goods from warehouse which was deposited later on though the goods deposited earlier or that the plaintiff was informed that damaged or expired goods was returned by plaintiff, hence, I held that nothing has come out in his cross examination to disbelieve his testimony. Hence, I held that defendant has failed to prove that the goods returned by the plaintiff was in damaged or in unacceptable condition as the same were dilapidated and obliterated by rat bites and further, some of the goods were already expired when the same was returned. In these circumstances, defendant has no right to forfeit the balance amount of Rs. 7,50,000/-, hence, it is liable to return the same.
22. As far as rate of interest on security amount is concerned, in my view, the onus is upon the plaintiff to prove that rate of interest was 8% p.a. on the security amount of Rs. 10 lakhs and not 4% p.a. PW1 has admitted in plaint as well as his testimony that defendant has sent an agreement to the plaintiff in which 4% p.a. interest was mentioned and according to him, he has changed the said terms and returned the agreement after making correction from 4% to 8% as rate of interest. The onus is upon the plaintiff to prove the said fact but the plaintiff did not produce said agreement CS (Comm) No. 172/24 Page No. 17 of 19 sent by the plaintiff to the defendant. Moreover, admittedly said agreement was never executed as same was not signed by the plaintiff and the defendant. Further, plaintiff has admitted that defendant has paid Rs. 40,000/- as interest for the FY 2021-22 but the plaintiff did not produce any complaint or letter written by it to the defendant that there was an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant that the rate of interest was 8% p.a. on the security amount and not 4% p.a. Hence, I held that plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that defendant agreed to pay 8% interest on the security amount, therefore, I held that plaintiff is not entitled 8% interest on the security amount of Rs. 10 lakhs, however, since defendant has not paid interest after FY 2021-22, therefore, defendant is liable to pay rate of interest 4% p.a. on the security amount from 01.04.2022 till the date he returned Rs. 2,50,000/- i.e. on 17.02.2023 and thereafter, it is liable to pay interest @ 4% p.a. on the amount of Rs. 7,50,00/- from 18.02.2023 till the date of filing of the suit, which comes to Rs. 63,572/-. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 8,13,572/- [Rs. 7,50,000/- as balance security amount + Rs. 63,572/- as interest @4% p.a]. Issue no. 1 is decided accordingly in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue No. 2 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so, at what rate and for which period ? OPP
23. Since the defendant has deprived the plaintiff from use of said amount, thus wrongful cause to the plaintiff and wrongful gain himself, therefore, considering the prevalent rate of interest, I CS (Comm) No. 172/24 Page No. 18 of 19 hold that plaintiff is entitled to interest @8% per annum on the aforesaid amount from the date of demand i.e. legal notice dt. 15.09.2023 till the date of filing of the suit and thereafter, the plaintiff will also be entitled to pendent-lite and future interest @8% p.a. on aforesaid decreetal amount from the date of filing of suit till the date of decree and thereafter till its realization. Relief
24. In view of above, I pass a decree for recovery of a sum of Rs. 8,13,572/- [rupees eight lakh thirteen thousand five hundred and seventy two only] in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant alongwith simple interest @8% per annum from the date of demand i.e. legal notice dt. 15.09.2023 till the date of filing of the suit and thereafter, plaintiff will also be entitled to pendent-lite and future interest @ 8% p.a. on aforesaid decreetal amount from the date of filing of suit till the date of decree and thereafter till its realization. Plaintiff will be entitled to proportionate costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed SANJEEV by SANJEEV Pronounced in open Court KUMAR KUMAR AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2024.12.09 on 09.12.2024. 17:20:20 +0530 (Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. CS (Comm) No. 172/24 Page No. 19 of 19