Delhi District Court
Also At vs M/S Primus Retail Pvt. Ltd on 21 December, 2013
: 1 :
IN THE COURT OF DR. NEERA BHARIHOKE : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE01 : SOUTH DISTRICT : SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
Suit No. : 807/11
In the matter of :
M/s Craftsmen,
having its Head Office at:
33B, Second & Third Floor,
SaidUlAjaib, M.B. Road
New Delhi - 110030
Through its Authorized Representatives
Mr. S. Padamata
Also at:
Factory/Workshop at
Plot no. 60, Sector 6, SIDCUL - IIE,
Pant Nagar, District Udham Singh
Nagar (Uttarakhand) .......................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
M/s Primus Retail Pvt. Ltd.
N503 & 503A, North Block,
Front Wing, Manipal Centre,
47, Dickenson Road,
Bangalore - 560042 ........................DEFENDANT
Date of institution : 22.11.2011
Date reserved for judgment : 05.12.2013
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 21.12.2013
Suit no. 807/11 Contd....P..1 of 7
: 2 :
JUDGMENT
(on suit for recovery of Rs. 10,25,733/)
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 10,25,733/.
Brief facts of the plaintiff are :
2. The plaintiff M/s Craftsmen is a Partnership firm duly registered under the Provisions of Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (as amended uptodate). The plaintiff is engaged in the business of fitting, fixtures, furniture and other interior works and the present suit has been filed by Mr. S. Padamata, Authorized Representative of plaintiff firm, who has been authorized by the plaintiff firm to file the present suit and to conduct legal proceedings on behalf of the plaintiff firm vide authority letter dated 14.10.2011.
3. The defendant company M/s Primus Retail Pvt. Ltd. is a Private Limited Company incorporated under Indian Companies Act, 1956. The defendant company is engaged in decoration of showrooms, malls etc. at different places and a work order was also executed by the defendant company in favour of the plaintiff firm.
4. The defendant company approached the plaintiff firm for various jobs and also to supply various goods/material/fixture and furniture at their sites i.e. Suit no. 807/11 Contd....P..2 of 7 : 3 : Sahara Ganj, Lucknow, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Kunal Tower, Ludhiana, V3S Mall Laxmi Nagar, Delhi and Vasantlok New Delhi and the plaintiff executed the such supply/work orders and raised bills/invoices from time to time in respect of above said supplied goods/material to the defendant company on completion of the projects basis and the defendant used to make the payment.
5. The plaintiff had been maintaining a running account in respect of the transaction with the defendant company. The amount becoming due to the plaintiff were being duly debited in these accounts. The plaintiff had been making entries in his books of account regularly kept in the course of their business.
6. The plaintiff firm submitted that during 1st April 2008 to March 2009, the books of accounts were being maintained by them in regular course of business and as per books of accounts there was an outstanding balance of Rs. 10,25,733/ due upon the defendant company towards the goods/material supplied by the plaintiff firm to the defendant company for their different sites/places.
7. The plaintiff firm sent various letters and emails to the defendant company on the address & email IDs of the defendant company from which email address the defendant used to correspond with the plaintiff, giving details of the various consignments sent by plaintiff at the request of the defendant company. Despite Suit no. 807/11 Contd....P..3 of 7 : 4 : repeated requests and demands by the plaintiff by way of emails, telephonic calls and letters as well as personal visits. Though every time the defendant assured to make the payment at the earliest but the said assurances given by the defendant turned to be false.
8. Till date of filing of the suit the defendant company had not paid the above said outstanding to the plaintiff and as such a sum of Rs.10,25,733.00 is due and payable by the defendant company to the plaintiff towards the materials/goods, furniture and fixture supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant company.
9. The plaintiff has submitted that the defendant is liable to pay interest @ 24% p.a. as interest on the principle amount of Rs.10,25,733.00 from 27.01.2009 till date. The defendant company lastly paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/ vide cheque No.021650 dated 24.01.2009 to the plaintiff firm.
10. The plaintiff sent a legal/demand notice dated 12.10.2011 vide registered A.D./Courier through its counsel demanding a sum of Rs.10,25,733.00 along with interest @ 24% p.a. within 15 days of the receipt of the notice but the defendant company has failed to make payment and outstanding amount till date.
11. The plaintiff has prayed for passing a money decree for Rs.10,25,733.00 (Rupees Ten lacs twenty five thousand and seven hundred thirty three only) Suit no. 807/11 Contd....P..4 of 7 : 5 : along with interest @ 24% per annum.
12. Summons of the suit were duly served upon the defendant through ordinary process. However defendant could not be served through ordinary process and accordingly they were served by way of publication in the newspaper "The Times of India" dated 04.03.2013. Despite service, defendant chose not to appear before the court and accordingly proceeded exparte vide order dated 10.04.2013.
13. Matter was then listed for exparte evidence. In support of its case, the plaintiff company examined one witness. The plaintiff firm examined his AR Sh. S. Padamata as PW1.
14. Affidavit of evidence of PW1 placed on record as Ex.PW1/A1. PW1 deposed and reiterated the contents of the plaint in his evidence.
15. PW1 placed reliance on the documents exhibited as Ex. PW1/A to PW1/G, details of which are as under :
i) Ex. PW1/A is authority letter of AR dated 14.10.2011.
ii) Ex.PW1/B is Original work order.
iii) Ex. PW1/B (colly) are original invoices/bills.
iv) Ex.PW1/C, D & E are copy of legal notice, registered AD and courier receipts.
v) Ex.PW1/F is copy of public notice.
Suit no. 807/11 Contd....P..5 of 7 : 6 :
16. Exparte evidence was then closed vide separate statement and matter was listed for exparte final arguments.
17. Exparte final arguments advanced by the counsel for the plaintiff company. Record of the case file perused carefully.
18. The suit of the plaintiff is based upon the invoices Ex. PW1/A to Ex. PW1/F. The suit is within limitation as it has a running account with the plaintiff and has been making payments. The testimony of PW1 has been duly corroborated by the documents placed on record. There is no occasion to doubt the veracity of the said witness and for that matter, the authenticity of testimony led by him. The testimony has gone absolutely unrebutted and unchallenged as no appearance has been put forth by the defendant and the defendant was proceeded exparte vide order dated 10.04.2013. This Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit as the work order was executed by the plaintiff and defendant at Head Office at New Delhi and the order was placed by the defendant company at the registered office of the plaintiff firm and the last transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant held at Head office of the plaintiff at New Delhi. This court finds no reason to disbelieve the on oath testimony of the PW 1 coupled with the relevant documents. Hence, the plaintiff bank has successfully proved its case by preponderance of probability.
Suit no. 807/11 Contd....P..6 of 7 : 7 :
19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this court is of the considered view that plaintiff has been able to discharge its burden of proving the case. Accordingly, the present case is decreed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant. The plaintiff has prayed for pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 24% per annum. However, in my considered opinion, the pendente lite and future interest @10% will serve the ends of justice and is awarded accordingly.
20. Hence the suit is decreed for the sum of Rs. 10,25,733/ along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 10% per annum. No order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance. Dictated and announced in the open court on 21st December, 2013 (Dr. Neera Bharihoke) ADJI(South) Saket Courts 21.12.2013 Suit no. 807/11 Contd....P..7 of 7 : 8 : Suit no. 807/11 M/s Craftsmen Vs. M/s Primus Retail Pvt. Ltd.
21.12.2013 Present: None.
Vide separate judgment, the present suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff. No order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.
(Dr. Neera Bharihoke)
ADJI(South) Saket Courts
21.12.2013
Suit no. 807/11 Contd....P..8 of 7