Delhi District Court
M/S. Brawn Laboratories Limited vs M/S. Cicada Health Care Pvt. Ltd on 22 April, 2010
Suit No.1808/08
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIL KUMAR SISODIA: SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-RENT
CONTROLLER (NORTH EAST DISTRICT): KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI.
CIVIL SUIT NO. 1808 OF 2006
M/S. BRAWN LABORATORIES LIMITED
4/4B, Asaf Ali Road, Stock Exchange Building,
New Delhi-110002
(Through it's Director) ............ PLAINTIFF
Versus
M/S. CICADA HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD.,
20, Maitri Apartment, Mayur Vihar, Phase-1,
Delhi-110091.
(Through it's Director) ......... DEFENDANTS
Date of institution : 05.12.2006
Order reserved on : 01.04.2010
Date of Decision : 22.04.2010
SUIT FOR RECOVERY
EX.PARTE JUDGMENT :
1.The plaintiff company has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.1,27,181/- with cost and interest against the defendant.
2. The facts of the case, in nutshell, are that plaintiff is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is carrying on the business of manufacturing and marketing of pharmaceutical products/ medicines all over India and abroad while the defendant company is carrying on the business of marketing and distribution of pharmaceutical products/ medicines. It has been stated that the defendant approached the plaintiff and showed their intention to purchase the pharmaceutical products/ medicines from the plaintiff. The terms and conditions were settled between the parties and the plaintiff supplied the medicines and raised bills which were paid by the defendant on bill to bill basis. The plaintiff has been maintaining a current and running account relating to transactions, the defendant had : 1 of 3 :
Suit No.1808/08with the plaintiff and as per the reconciliation of the account till 31st March, 2006, a sum of Rs.90,040/- is due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. The plaintiff vide various letters dated 6.5.06 and 7.6.06 requested the defendant to release the aforesaid outstanding amount immediately along with interest but defendant neither entertained the request of the plaintiff nor released the over due payments. Thereafter the plaintiff issued the defendant a statutory legal notice dated 26.10.2006 requesting the defendant to pay the aforesaid amount along with 15% interest but defendant instead of making payment has been sent a reply dated 08.11.2006 to the aforesaid legal notice. Finding no other options the plaintiff filed the present suit.
3. The defendant was served by way of publication in newspaper "The Statesman" dated 05.06.2008, but it failed to appear and contest the suit and accordingly defendant was proceeded ex-parte vide orders dated 17.09.2008.
4. Thereafter the plaintiff was directed to lead its evidence. The plaintiff examined Sh. Manoj Raina, Assistant Distribution Manager of the plaintiff company as PW-1 who tendered his affidavit EX.PW-1/X wherein he reiterated the facts stated in the plaint. PW-1 also proved the copy of Board Resolution in favour of Sh. Manoj Raina as EX.PW1/1; Copy of Certificate of Incorporation issued by the Registrar of Companies as Ex.PW1/2; statement of account as EX.PW-1/3 (Colly); letter bearing Ref. No.Cicada/Brawn/N. Delhi/2006-2007 dated 05.05.2006 as Ex.PW1/4; letters dated 06.05.2006 & 07.06.2006 issued by the plaintiff company to the defendant for releasing the outstanding amount as Ex.PW1/5 (Colly); legal notice dated 26.10.2006 as Ex.PW1/6; Regd. & UPC receipts as Ex.PW1/7 (Colly); reply dated 08.111.2006 sent by the defendant as Ex.PW1/8. Thereafter, PE was closed.
5. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff Sh. Shivnath Kumar, Advocate and have perused the record carefully. The testimony of PW-1 coupled with the documents proved by him establish the case of the plaintiff. Testimony of PW-1 has remained unassailed and unrebutted and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. Perusal of the documents and statement of account show that the defendant has failed to repay the outstanding amount payable by defendant and thus the plaintiff is entitled to : 2 of 3 :
Suit No.1808/08recover the same.
6. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiff bank has established its case against the defendant. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The plaintiff shall be entitled to recover a sum of Rs.1,27,181/- along with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till its realization from the defendant. The plaintiff shall also be entitled for the costs of the suit. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court
Dated : 22th April, 2010 (ANIL KUMAR SISODIA)
SCJ-CUM-RC (NE)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS
DELHI.
: 3 of 3 :
Suit No.1808/08
22.04.2010 :
Present : None.
Vide separate judgment announced in open court today, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs and interest. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
SCJ-CUM-RC (NE) KARKARDOOMA COURTS DELHI/22.04.2010.
: 4 of 3 :