Delhi District Court
Scj Plastics Pvt. Ltd vs . M/S S.I. Precision on 20 April, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHITRANSHI ARORA , CIVIL
JUDGE-02, SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI.
CS SCJ 755/17
SCJ PLASTICS PVT. LTD Vs. M/S S.I. PRECISION
MOULD PVT LTD AND ANR.
In the matter of:-
SCJ Plastics Pvt. Ltd.
F-3/10-11, Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase-I, New Delhi-110020 ................Plaintiff
Vs.
1. M/s S. I Precisionn Mould Pvt. Ltd.
Registered Office At:-
F-29, Basement
Green Park Main, New Delhi-110016
Work At:
C-1, Phase- II Extension
Hosiery Complex, Noida - 201304
Works also at:
Plot No. B-6,
SIPCOT Industrial Growth Center,
Vaippur A Village,
Orragadam-602105 (TN)
2. Mr. Myung Bo Kin, Managing Director
M/s S. I. Precision Mould Pvt. Ltd.,
B-6 SIPCOT Industrial Growth Centre,
Vaippur A Village,
Orragadam-602105 .............Defendant
SUIT FOR RECOVERY
Date of institution of the suit : 01.07.2017
Judgment reserved on : 28.03.2023
Date of judgment : 20.04.2023
CS SCJ 755/17
SCJ PLASTICS PVT. LTD Vs. M/S S.I. PRECISION MOULD PVT LTD AND ANR.
Page no. 1 of 11 Digitally signed
by CHITRANSHI
CHITRANSHI ARORA
ARORA Date: 2023.04.20
15:59:49 +0530
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the present suit for recovery of Rs.2,69,990/-(Rupees Two Lacs Sixty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Only) along with interest, filed by the plaintiff against the defendants.
2. The suit was initially filed under Order 37 CPC.
However, it was converted into an ordinary suit for recovery vide statement of the Ld. counsel for the plaintiff recorded on 16.12.2017.
3. It is also pertinent to mention that the suit was initially filed against three defendants, defendant no. 1 being M/s S. I. Precision Mould Pvt. Ltd., defendant no. 2 being M/s Stellar Plastics (India) Pvt. Ltd. and defendant no. 3 being Mr. M.Y. Myung Bo Kin, Managing Director of M/s S. I Precision Mould Pvt. Ltd. However, the defendant no. 2 was deleted from the array of parties, by way of an order under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC passed on 06.04.2022. Thereafter, the suit continued only against two defendants.
BRIEF FACTS AS PER PLAINT:-
4. Plaintiff is a Limited Company duly registered with ROC Delhi and Haryana. The plaintiff company deals in master batches and compounds. Defendant no.1 is a Pvt.CS SCJ 755/17
SCJ PLASTICS PVT. LTD Vs. M/S S.I. PRECISION MOULD PVT LTD AND ANR.
Digitally signedPage no. 2 of 11 by CHITRANSHI
CHITRANSHI ARORA
ARORA Date: 2023.04.20
16:00:00 +0530
Ltd. company duly registered with Registrar of
Companies, Delhi and Haryana.
5. Defendant no. 2 is the Managing Director of the defendant no.1, who had been actively managing the affairs of the defendant no.1 company and is also personally, jointly and severally liable for the debts of the defendant no. 1 company.
6. Plaintiff had been supplying goods to the defendant no.1 even prior to 01.04.2014. As on 01.04.2014, there was a balance payment of Rs.3,13,192/- to be paid by the defendant no.1 to the plaintiff. The same was duly confirmed by the defendant no.1 to the plaintiff vide account balance confirmation dated 17.6.2014. Further, the defendant no.1 for its works situated at Noida, purchased more master batches worth Rs.1,58,847/- on credit of 45 days on 22.04.2014, 25.04.2014 and 14.05.2014. Three invoices were raised by the plaintiff against the said orders of the defendant no. 1. The orders were received and accepted by the plaintiff at their office in New Delhi and payment of the goods purchased had to be made by the defendants to the plaintiff at the said registered office of the plaintiff at New Delhi on FIFO basis only.
7. The receipt of goods vide said three invoices had been duly acknowledged by the defendant no.1, which has CS SCJ 755/17 SCJ PLASTICS PVT. LTD Vs. M/S S.I. PRECISION MOULD PVT LTD AND ANR. Digitally CHITRANSHI signed by CHITRANSHI ARORA Page no. 3 of 11 ARORA Date: 2023.04.20 16:00:05 +0530 been duly accepted by the defendant no.1 after inspecting the same as the defendant no.1 had all the opportunities to inspect the said goods before use. The defendant no.1 was supposed to make the payment to the plaintiff within the credit period of 45 days, failing which, defendant no.1 was liable to pay to the plaintiff interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the date of expiry of credit period of 45 days.
8. Thus, defendants had to pay to the plaintiff a total payment of Rs.4,72,039/-. However, since April 2014 till date, the defendant company has made the payment of Rs.3,13,192/- to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the balance payment remaining to be paid by the plaintiff is Rs.1,58,847/-. Further, the defendants are also liable to pay interest totaling to Rs.1,11,143/- as on the date of the filing of the suit. The total amount due to be paid by the defendant is Rs. 2,69,990/-.
9. The plaintiff had also issued legal notice to the defendant no. 1 dated 31.08.2015. However, the defendant no. 1 never replied to the said notice. In the background of these facts, the plaintiff has filed the instant suit for recovery.
SUMMONS: -
10. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff on 01.07.2017. Summons issued upon defendants were served Digitally signed by CS SCJ 755/17 CHITRANSHI SCJ PLASTICS PVT. LTD Vs. M/S S.I. PRECISION MOULD PVT LTD AND ANR.
CHITRANSHI ARORA
Page no. 4 of 11 ARORA Date:
2023.04.20
16:00:50
+0530
via email. Despite service, neither did the defendants appear nor filed their written statements. Vide order dated 04.04.2018, the defendants were proceeded against ex- parte.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE : -
11. In ex-parte evidence, Authorized Representative (AR) of the plaintiff, deposed vide affidavit of evidence exhibited as Ex.PW1/A bearing his signature at point A and B, wherein he reiterated the contents of the plaint. For the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition, the contents are not being reproduced again. The AR of plaintiff relied upon the following documents:-
S. No. Documents Exhibits
1. Copy of certificate of Ex. PW-1/1
incorporation (OSR)
2. Certificate of incorporation Ex. PW-1/2
3. Certificate under Sec. 65 B Ex. PW-1/3 of IEA in respect of Ex.
PW-1/2
4. Resolution dated Ex. PW-1/4 01.04.2017 in original
5. Resolution dated Ex. PW-1/5 19.07.2021 in original
6. Account balance Ex. PW-1/6 confirmation dated 17.06.2014 issued by the defendant to the plaintiff
7. Duly received copy of Ex. PW-1/7 CS SCJ 755/17 Digitally signed SCJ PLASTICS PVT. LTD Vs. M/S S.I. PRECISION MOULD PVT LTD AND ANR. by CHITRANSHI Page no. 5 of 11 CHITRANSHI ARORA ARORA Date:
2023.04.20 16:00:55 +0530 invoices no. 240, 295 and to Ex. PW-502 1/9
8. Copy of statement of Ex. PW-1/10 account
9. Certificate under Sec. 65 B Ex. PW-1/11 of IEA in respect of statement of account
10. Copy of legal notice dated Ex. PW-1/12 31.08.2015 (colly) (2 pages)
11. Postal receipt dated Ex. PW-1/13 31.08.2015
12. MOU between D-1 and D-2 Ex. PW-1/14 filed by D-2 along with (running application under O 1 R 10 from page CPC no. 12 to 42)
12. Vide separate statement of AR of the plaintiff, the plaintiff evidence was closed on 14.12.2022. This is the entire evidence adduced in this matter.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:-
13. Final arguments were advanced by Ld. counsel for the plaintiff. I have heard the submissions advanced by him. I have also perused the entire case record meticulously.
FINDINGS: -
14. The plaintiff has asserted that the defendant no. 1 company had placed orders against which three invoices, dated 22.04.2014 for an amount of Rs.13,238/-, invoice CS SCJ 755/17 Digitally signed SCJ PLASTICS PVT. LTD Vs. M/S S.I. PRECISION MOULD PVT LTD AND ANR.
CHITRANSHI by CHITRANSHI ARORA Page no. 6 of 11 ARORA Date: 2023.04.20 16:00:59 +0530 dated 25.04.2014 for an amount of Rs.66,186/- and invoice dated 14.05.2014 for an amount of Rs.79,423/- were raised in the name of the defendant no. 1 company. The invoices are exhibited as Ex. PW-1/7 to Ex. PW-1/9. However, the defendant has not made the complete payment against the invoices and an amount of Rs. 1,58,847/- is due to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff.
15. Perusal of the statement of account exhibited as Ex.
PW-1/10 read with certificate under Sec. 65 B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW-1/11, shows that there was an opening balance of Rs. 3,13,192/- as on 01.04.2014, after which the defendant no. 1 had made a payment of Rs. 1,54,346/- on 26.04.2014, Rs.79,423/- on 19.08.2014 and Rs.79,423/- on 14.11.2014. These amounts paid by the defendant no. 1 were adjusted against the opening balance ie. Rs.3,13,192/-. Therefore, as per the statement of account, the amount of the invoices Ex. PW-1/7 to Ex. PW-1/9 is yet to be paid by the defendant no.1.
16. However, the invoice dated 22.04.2014, is barred by the law of limitation, since the suit was filed on 09.06.2017 and the period of limitation for filing the suit qua the invoice dated 22.04.2014, began on 06.06.2014 (since the invoice provided for 45 days credit period). Thus, the three years limitation period had already elapsed. Ld. counsel for the plaintiff conceded with the observation of the court that the relief qua the first bill is beyond the period of CS SCJ 755/17 SCJ PLASTICS PVT. LTD Vs. M/S S.I. PRECISION MOULD PVT LTD AND ANR. Digitally signed by Page no. 7 of 11 CHITRANSHI CHITRANSHI ARORA ARORA Date: 2023.04.20 16:01:04 +0530 limitation. The same is recorded in the order dated 28.03.2023.
17. However, the relief of recovery qua the other two bills are not barred by the law of limitation. Thus, a perusal of the documents shows that the defendant no. 1 is liable to make the payment of principal amount qua the bills dated 25.04.2014 and 14.05.2014 totaling to Rs.1,45,591/-. The plaintiff has also placed on record the legal notice along with the postal receipt exhibited as Ex. PW-1/12 and Ex. PW-1/13 to show that he had served notice upon defendant no. 1.
18. Further, it is imperative to note that the plaintiff has impleaded the managing director of the defendant no. 1 company as defendant no. 2 in the instant suit. Perusal of the plaint shows that the plaintiff in paragraph 3 has asserted that the defendant no. 2 is personally liable for the acts of the defendant no. 1 company. However, the plaintiff has not been able to prove this assertion and such a bald and unsubstantiated averment cannot be believed.
19. The law has been clearly laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court1 that a company, being a separate legal entity, is responsible for its own debts and liabilities and the directors cannot be held personally liable on behalf of the company unless the directors have made themselves 1Tristar Consultants vs V Customer Services India Pvt AIR 2007 Delhi 157, Mukesh Hans and anr. v. Smt. Uma Bhasin and ors. dated 16 August 2010 Digitally signed CS SCJ 755/17 by CHITRANSHI SCJ PLASTICS PVT. LTD Vs. M/S S.I. PRECISION MOULD PVT LTD AND ANR.
CHITRANSHI ARORA
Page no. 8 of 11 ARORA Date:
2023.04.20
16:01:08 +0530
personally liable, by entering into specific contracts of guarantee or indemnity, or have committed acts of fraud in conducting the business of the company.
20. Thus, in the instant case, the defendant no.2 cannot be held liable for the amount due to be recovered by the plaintiff from defendant no. 1.
21. Further, the plaintiff has also claimed interest amounting to Rs.1,11,143/- calculated at the rate of 24% per annum calculated from the date of expiry of 45 days, till the date of filing of the suit along with pendentelite and future interest at the rate of 24% per annum. Perusal of Ex. PW-1/8 and Ex. PW-1/9 shows that the invoice provided that interest at 24 % will be recovered in case of the late payments. Therefore, since the defendant no. 1 has not made the payment of the invoices Ex. PW-1/8 and Ex. PW- 1/9, the defendant no. 1 is liable to pay interest at the rate of 24% per annum. Accordingly, the defendant no. 1 is liable to pay interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the due date i.e. 09.06.2014, on the amount of the invoice Ex. PW-1/8, till the date of filing of the suit i.e. 09.06.2017. Similarly, the defendant no. 1 is liable to pay interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the due date i.e. 28.06.2014, on the amount of the invoice Ex. PW-1/9, till the date of filing of the suit i.e. 09.06.2017.
22. However, it is the discretion of the court to grant CS SCJ 755/17 Digitally signed SCJ PLASTICS PVT. LTD Vs. M/S S.I. PRECISION MOULD PVT LTD AND ANR. by CHITRANSHI Page no. 9 of 11 CHITRANSHI ARORA ARORA Date:
2023.04.20 16:01:13 +0530 pendentelite and future interest. Interest at the rate of 24% per annum seems to be unreasonable. Therefore, interest at reasonable rates shall be granted to the plaintiff.
23. It is pertinent to mention that the defendants have not filed their reply to controvert the allegations and evidence adduced by the plaintiff. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-1.
24. In view of the unrebutted testimony of PW-1, various documents placed and proved on record, in view of the above discussion and in absence of any evidence to the contrary, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has proved its case and is entitled to recover the following amount only from the defendant no.1 i.e. M/s S.I. Precision Mould Pvt Ltd:-
(i) Rs.1,45,591/- (Rupees One Lac Forty Five Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety One Only);
(ii) Interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the due date i.e. 09.06.2014, on the amount of the invoice Ex. PW-1/8 i.e. Rs.66,186/-, till the date of filing of the suit i.e. 09.06.2017;
(iii) Interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the due date i.e. 28.06.2014, on the amount of the invoice Ex. PW-1/9 i.e. Rs.79,423/-, till the CS SCJ 755/17 SCJ PLASTICS PVT. LTD Vs. M/S S.I. PRECISION MOULD PVT LTD AND ANR. Digitally signed by CHITRANSHI Page no. 10 of 11 CHITRANSHI ARORA ARORA Date: 2023.04.20 16:01:20 +0530 date of filing of the suit i.e. 09.06.2017 and
(iv) Interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree on the principal amount i.e. Rs.1,45,591/-
and interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization, on the principal amount i.e. Rs.1,45,591/-.
25. Cost of the suit is awarded to plaintiff.
26. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
27. File be consigned to record room after due Digitally signed by CHITRANSHI compliance. CHITRANSHI ARORA ARORA Date: 2023.04.20 16:01:30 +0530 Pronounced in the open court (Chitranshi Arora) Today on 20.04.2023 CJ-02, South-East, Saket Court, ND CS SCJ 755/17 SCJ PLASTICS PVT. LTD Vs. M/S S.I. PRECISION MOULD PVT LTD AND ANR. Page no. 11 of 11