Delhi District Court
Ms Ar Printer Point vs Rt Outsourcing Services Ltd on 21 November, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. SONU AGNIHOTRI, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE07, SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Civil Suit No. 14230/13
CNR No.: DLSE010026762013
M/S A.R. PRINTER POINT
Through its Proprietor
324H, PocketII, PhaseI,
Mayur Vihar, Delhi110091.
.......... Plaintiff
VERSUS
RT OUTSOURCING SERVICES LIMITED
Presently Known as:
IN TARVO TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Through its:
Director/Authorized Representative/MD
Having its registered office at:
B14/1, Okhla Industrial Area, PhaseII,
New Delhi110020.
Also at: G 46, Chandra Bhawan, 6768,
Near ICICI Bank, Nehru Place, New Delhi19.
Also at: D45, Sector 80, PhaseII,
Noida, Uttar Pradesh201305.
......... Defendant
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.4,14,546.30/ (RUPEES FOUR
LAC FOURTEEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED FORTY SIX
RUPEES AND THIRTY PAISA ONLY) ALONGWITH FUTURE
AND PENDENTELITE INTEREST
CS No. 14230/13 Page No. 1 of 7
M/s. A.R. Printer Point Vs. In Tarvo Technologies Ltd.
Date of institution : 23.05.2013
Date when judgment reserved : 09.11.2023
Date of Judgment : 21.11.2023
EXPARTE JUDGMENT
1.Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of present suit filed by plaintiff against defendant for recovery of Rs.4,14,546.30/ alongwith future and pendentelite interest.
2. The case of plaintiff in brief as averred in plaint is as under:
3. It is stated that plaintiff is proprietorship concern and engaged in business of PVC conducting charges, core cabling, fixing and installing of cameras etc. It is stated that defendant is a limited company and engaged in service outsourcing business and leading provider of Integrated Lifecycle Management support services for Technology Products for original equipment manufacturers, EMS companies, Distributors, Large Corporation and Retail Chains. It is stated that plaintiff raised number of bills on defendant company for services rendered by it and defendant company paid dues to plaintiff from time to time.
4. It is stated that defendant is regular client of plaintiff concern and regularly availed services of plaintiff concern. It is stated that defendant company i.e. Intarvo Technologies Ltd. was previously known as RT Outsourcing Services Ltd. It is stated that defendant approached CS No. 14230/13 Page No. 2 of 7 M/s. A.R. Printer Point Vs. In Tarvo Technologies Ltd. plaintiff for conducting and cabling at various locations of Delhi and NCR. It is stated that rates for the services were fixed between parties from time to time as per area, distance or as per material to be used.
5. It is stated that defendant company approached plaintiff firm to render its services i.e. for PVC conducting, core cabling, fixing and installation of cameras at the site of JMD, DLF Plaza, Gurgaon and after confirmation and acceptance of contract/order from both the parties, defendant company raised a service order bearing No. WOSOLC490 07071004. The rates and work to be performed was mentioned in the said contract and payment was to be made after completion of work and after raising the bills or after completion of work by plaintiff concern.
6. It is stated that after completion of work successfully as per directions of defendant, plaintiff generated bills/invoices amounting of Rs.2,85,894/ upon defendant company vide invoice No. October/09 10/006 dated 13.10.2010. It is stated that after raising invoice, defendant company showed its inability to pay outstanding payment within time. It is stated that as per terms and conditions, defendant company was bound to make payment to plaintiff by 01.11.2010 after submission of invoice dated 13.10.2010.
7. It is stated that plaintiff continuously approached defendant company but defendant failed to pay outstanding dues on account of shortage of funds and stated that it will pay outstanding dues to plaintiff after 45 months. It is stated that plaintiff was left with no option but to accept defendant's assurance. It is stated that plaintiff concern kept on CS No. 14230/13 Page No. 3 of 7 M/s. A.R. Printer Point Vs. In Tarvo Technologies Ltd. continuously approaching defendant company by way of emails, phone calls and personal visits but all efforts of plaintiff proved futile.
8. It is stated that till date defendant has failed to pay due amount of Rs.2,85,894/ with interest @ 18% per annum (interest of Rs.1,28,652.3/ from date of due/bill till filing of present suit on May 2013 on principal amount of Rs.2,85,894/).
9. Plaintiff has prayed for passing a decree for a sum of Rs.4,14,546.30/ in favour of plaintiff and against defendant alongwith future and pendentelite interest @ 18% per annum till realization of the amount. Costs of the suit are also sought to be granted in favour of plaintiff and against defendant.
10. Initially, present suit was filed under Order XXXVII CPC and suit was decreed against defendant on dismissal of its leave to defend application vide order dated 18.09.2014 but later on, defendant filed RFA No. 667/2014 before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi which was disposed of vide order dated 23.08.2018 whereby the suit was ordered to be considered as ordinary suit for recovery of money and order dated 18.09.2014 was setaside.
11. After receipt of order dated 23.08.2018 from Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, suit was assigned to Ld. ADJ01, SouthEast District, Saket Courts. Vide order dated 02.03.2019, on account of nontaking of steps by plaintiff for service of defendant, suit was dismissed for non prosecution whereafter, an application under Order IX Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC was moved on behalf of plaintiff seeking restoration of CS No. 14230/13 Page No. 4 of 7 M/s. A.R. Printer Point Vs. In Tarvo Technologies Ltd. suit which application was allowed vide order dated 23.10.2019 and suit filed by plaintiff was restored to its original number.
12. Thereafter, fresh summons of the suit were issued to defendant in pursuance whereof, defendant put up appearance through its AR and supplied advance copy of WS to counsel for plaintiff but did not file written statement before Court. As per noting of Ahlmad below ordersheet dated 11.05.2022, WS in the matter was not filed whereafter, matter was fixed for recording of evidence of plaintiff. Though defendant was not formally proceeded exparte, it is coming in ordersheet from 20.02.2023 onward on Court record that defendant was exparte. Formal order of proceeding defendant exparte was ultimately passed on 09.11.2023.
13. In order to prove its case, plaintiff examined Sh. Ashvini K. Bujoo AR/proprietor of plaintiff company as PW1 who exhibited his affidavit of evidence vide Ex.PW1/A. In affidavit, PW1 reiterated the averments made in the plaint. During his deposition, PW1 relied upon and exhibited the following documents: Mark PW1/1 : Copy of fresh certificate of incorporation of defendant company consequent upon change of name.
Ex.PW1/ 2 : Printout of description of
defendant company taken out
from the website of defendant
company
CS No. 14230/13 Page No. 5 of 7
M/s. A.R. Printer Point Vs. In Tarvo Technologies Ltd.
Ex.PW1/3 : Certified copy of statement of
account of plaintiff
Ex.PW1/4 : Copy of service order dated
30.07.2010 placed by defendant
company
Ex.PW1/5 : Copy of invoice dated
13.10.2010
Ex.PW1/6 : Certificate U/sec 65B of Indian
Evidence Act
14. I have heard final arguments addressed by counsel for plaintiff and perused the record.
15. Factum of defendant company approaching plaintiff for conducting and cabling at various locations of Delhi and NCR as per directions of defendant company as deposed by PW1 in his evidence affidavit stands proved remaining unrebutted. Factum of plaintiff installing cameras and doing other works for defendant company as per requirement of defendant company stands proved on account of remaining unrebutted. Factum of defendant company approaching plaintiff firm to render its services i.e. for PVC conducting, core cabling, fixing and installation of cameras at the site of JMD, DLF Plaza Gurgaon and after confirmation and acceptance of contract / order from both the parties, defendant company raised service order dated 30.07.2010 vide Ex. PW1/4 stands proved on account of remaining unrebutted. Bill /invoice Ex. PW1/5 raised by plaintiff stands proved on account of remaining unrebutted. Both exhibits Ex. PW1/4 and Ex. PW1/5 are CS No. 14230/13 Page No. 6 of 7 M/s. A.R. Printer Point Vs. In Tarvo Technologies Ltd. corroborated by certificate U/sec 65B of Indian Evidence Act vide Ex. PW1/6. As per invoice Ex. PW1/5, due amount of plaintiff towards defendant company is Rs. 2,85,894/.
16. Plaintiff has claimed interest @ 18 % per annum on principal amount. So far as grant of interest on the aforesaid principal amount is concerned, plaintiff has not produced on record any prevailing notified rate of interest. I am of the view that interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 2,85,894/ from date of filing of present suit till date of realization shall meet ends of justice.
17 Accordingly, suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a sum of Rs. 2,85,894/ against defendant company. Interest is granted on principal amount as mentioned above. Costs of suit are also granted in favour of plaintiff and against defendant. Decreesheet be prepared accordingly.
18. File be consigned to RecordRoom.
Announced in open Court (Sonu Agnihotri)
today on 21.11.2023 ADJ07, South East District,
Saket Courts/Delhi
CS No. 14230/13 Page No. 7 of 7
M/s. A.R. Printer Point Vs. In Tarvo Technologies Ltd.