Delhi District Court
M/S. Versatile Enterprises vs M/S. Kawasa Shoes on 13 March, 2013
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUMIT DASS, ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL
JUDGE (NORTH WEST), ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Suit No. : 160/12
M/s. Versatile Enterprises
Plot No. 15, PocketH, Sector3,
DSIDC, Bawana Industrial Complex,
Bawana, Delhi110 039.
Through its Special Attorney
Sh. Ravinder Sharma ...Plaintiff.
Versus
1. M/s. Kawasa Shoes,
Khasra No. 2020/1818/1
VillageThanaA, IEPIP2
TehsilNalagarh, DistrictSolan
Through its Sole Proprietor/Principle Partner
Sh. Sukhdev Batra
2. Sh. Sukhdev Batra
Sole Proprietor/Principle Partner
M/s. Kawasa Shoes,
Khasra No. 2020/1818/1
Suit No. 160/12 M/s. Versatile Enterprises Vs. M/s. Kawasa Shoes& Ors. 1 of 7
2
VillageThanaA, IEPIP2
TehsilNalagarh, DistrictSolan
ALSO AT:
Sukhdev Batra
Sole Proprietor/Principle Partner
M/s. Kawasa Shoes,
C/o. M/s. Godson Shoes,
69/5393, Regar Pura,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi110 005.
ALSO AT:
Sukhdev Batra
Sole Proprietor/Principle Partner
M/s. Kawasa Shoes,
C/o. M/s. Godson Shoes,
34/13, Tikri Kalan,
Nr. Govt. Sarvodaya Kanya Vidalaya,
Tikri Kalan, New Delhi110 041
ALSO AT:
Sukhdev Batra
Sole Proprietor/Principle Partner
M/s. Kawasa Shoes,
40/72, West Punjabi Bagh,
Suit No. 160/12 M/s. Versatile Enterprises Vs. M/s. Kawasa Shoes& Ors. 2 of 7
3
New Delhi110 026.
...Defendants.
Date of Institution : 24.07.2012
Date of Arguments : 01.03.2013
Date of Judgment : 13.03.2013
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs. 1,52,306/
JUDGMENT:
1. The brief facts of the case are :
The plaintiff is a partnership firm registered with the Registrar of Firms under The Indian Partnership Act having its Main Office at Purani Kotwali, Chaura Bazar, Ludhiana, registered as importerexporter vide Certificate of ImporterExporter Code (IEC) issued by Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry. The present suit has been filed through the Special Power Attorney Sh. Ravinder Sharma.
2. The defendant no.1 is the sole proprietorship concern/partnership concern and the defendant no.2 is its sole proprietor/principle partner having its business premises at the address given above and dealing with the plaintiff firm through its sole proprietor/principle partner i.e. the defendant no.2 who was Suit No. 160/12 M/s. Versatile Enterprises Vs. M/s. Kawasa Shoes& Ors. 3 of 7 4 placing orders to the plaintiff firm for purchasing goods consisting of Laminated Fabrics, etc. on credit basis with an understanding that defendant no. 1 will pay the amount of invoices on presentation. The plaintiff firm from their Delhi Office address had supplied the ordered goods from their factory premises from Delhi to the defendant no.1 and the goods have been duly received and acknowledged by the defendant no.1. The payments which have been made by defendant no.1 have been deposited by plaintiff firm in their bank account in Delhi and also credited in the said account of defendant no.1 in their computerized book of accounts. Thereafter having managed to receive the goods, the defendant no.1 after some time started delaying the payment on one pretext or the other and moreover in spite of so many demands of the plaintiff firm, the defendants were avoiding the payment with the malafide intention to grab the money of the plaintiff. Lastly, defendant no. 1 had issued a cheque no. 627296 dt. 19.07.2010 amounting Rs. 40,186/ and plaintiff presented the said cheque for payment to the banker of the defendant no.1 through their banker i.e. HDFC Bank, New Delhi but the said cheque was dishonoured on 20.07.2010 due to "Funds Insufficient". Subsequently, later on the said cheque was honoured on representation on 29.07.2010. Defendant no. 1 again issued a cheque no. 692032 dt. 04.08.2010 amounting Rs. 37,665/ and plaintiff presented the said cheque for payment to the banker of the defendant no. 1 through their banker i.e. HDFC Bank, New Delhi but the said Suit No. 160/12 M/s. Versatile Enterprises Vs. M/s. Kawasa Shoes& Ors. 4 of 7 5 cheque was dishonoured on 26.08.2010 due to "Funds Insufficient". Further a sum of Rs. 1,01, 456/ on account to the principle value of the goods purchased by the defendant no.1 from the plaintiff firm is due and outstanding from the defendant no.1 to the plaintiff as on 30.08.2010 plus interest of Rs. 50,850/ @ 24% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of each invoices till 30.06.2012. Thus, the total outstanding is Rs. 1,52,306/. After having failed to receive the payments for the outstanding dues of Rs. 1,01,456/ as per the ledger account of the defendant no.1 plaintiff had no other option but to approach both the defendants through a legal notice of demand dt. 19.10.2011 for the recovery of the outstanding amount of Rs. 1,01,456/ plus interest @ 24% p.a. No reply to the notice was received by the plaintiff nor the payment was made. Hence, the present suit was filed.
3. Summons for settlement of issues were issued to the defendants and the same were served upon the defendants. However, the defendants failed to appear and defendants were proceeded exparte on 20.01.2012 by my learned predecessor. Thereafter, the plaintiff led its evidence and examined Sh. Ravinder Sharma being manager of the plaintiff as PW1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and also relied upon documents Ex.PW1/1, i.e., original deed of Special Power of Attorney dt. 13.06.2012, photocopies of the certificates PW1/2 (colly), invoices of the goods Ex.PW1/3(colly), cheque return memo Suit No. 160/12 M/s. Versatile Enterprises Vs. M/s. Kawasa Shoes& Ors. 5 of 7 6 Ex.PW1/4, photocopy of the legal notice, original postal receipts, AD Card Ex.PW1/5 (colly), statement of account of defendant no. 1 Ex.PW1/6. Thereafter PE was closed.
4. Heard.
5. As the testimony of PW1 has remained unrebutted and unchallenged, in as much as the defendants have not chosen to participate and have opted to remain ex parte consequently I have no reason to disbelieve the same. The first and formost is the factum of registration of the firm and inthis regard the form A Ex.PW1/2 has been proved on record. The power of attorney which has been executed by Sh. Vipan Kumar Seth whose name is duly reflected in said Ex.PW1/2. Thus on the aspect of proper institution of the suit, the plaintiff by way of the said documents has been duly able to establish that the suit has been properly executed on behalf of registered partnership firm.
As per the statement of accounts there is an outstanding of Rs. 1,01,456/. The interest has been added over the same making the suit for Rs. 1,52,306/. The interest is w.e.f. 10.05.2010. The suit was filed on 23.07.2012. I deem it fit to grant interest @ 12% p.a. and that to simple w.e.f. from the said date i.e. 10.05.2010 till realization. Ordered accordingly. The request is made Suit No. 160/12 M/s. Versatile Enterprises Vs. M/s. Kawasa Shoes& Ors. 6 of 7 7 for grant of interest at the rate provided on the face of the invoices/printed therein. I disagree. There are two reasons for not granting interest at the said rate of interest. This clause in a manner was never pressed/observed by the plaintiff himself in as much as he had accepted part payment and also as per plaint averments did not insist on the said clause and was agreeable to receive the principal sum. Secondly, such type of clauses are in pith and substance intended to ensure prompt payment. Hence, interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization is granted. Costs of the suit also awarded to the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open court (Sumit Dass)
on 13.03.2013. ACJCUMARC NORTHWEST
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
(This judgment contains seven pages and each page bears my signature.) Suit No. 160/12 M/s. Versatile Enterprises Vs. M/s. Kawasa Shoes& Ors. 7 of 7