Delhi District Court
M/S Welcome World Electrical Private ... vs M/S Mahesh Electricals on 12 March, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI,
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (SOUTH), SAKET
COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CS No. 611/2011
Unique Case ID No. 02406C0262242011
M/s Welcome World Electrical Private Ltd.,
47A, Second floor, Arjun Nagar,
Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi 110 029.
Also at:
T4 & T5, Anupam Plaza, 56/1, Kalu Sarai,
Aurbindo Marg, Near IIT, Flyover,
Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110 016.
Through its Director
Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Kumar
... Plaintiff
Versus
1. M/s Mahesh Electricals,
Shop no. 50, Govinda Complex,
G.I.D.C, Char Rasta, Vapi,
Gujarat - 396 195.
2. Mr. Rajendra Singh, Proprietor,
M/s Mahesh Electricals,
Shop no. 50, Govinda Complex,
G.I.D.C, Char Rasta, Vapi,
Gujarat - 396 195.
....Defendants
CS No. 611/2011 Page No. 1 of 6
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 13.10.2011
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT/ORDER : Not reserved.
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.03.2012.
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 2,11,177/ (RUPEES TWO LACS
ELEVEN THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY SEVEN
ONLY) ALONGWITH PENDENTE LITE AND FUTURE
INTEREST
J U D G M E N T
1. This is a suit for recovery filed by the plaintiff against the defendants on 13.10.2011 to recover a sum of Rs. 2,11,177/ along with pendente lite and future interest @18% per annum from the date of institution of the present suit till its actual realization and costs of the suit.
2. Brief facts of the case as set out in the plaint is that the plaintiff is a proprietorship firm and is engaged in the business of sell and supply of Hot Dip G1 Perforated Type Cable Tray, Earthing material and Accessories (hereinafter called "electrical goods"). The plaintiff filed the present suit through its director Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Kumar who has been duly authorized vide Board Resolution dated 06.10.2011 to sign, verify and institute the present legal proceedings on behalf of plaintiff. The defendant no. 1 is a proprietorship firm and defendant no. 2 is its CS No. 611/2011 Page No. 2 of 6 sole proprietor. The defendants are interalia engaged in the retail business of sell and purchase of electrical goods. In the month of March, 2008, the defendants approached the plaintiff and requested for supply of electrical goods. After various deliberations and negotiations, the plaintiff agreed to supply the electrical goods to the defendants at the rate which was agreed to by the defendants. As per their requirements, the defendants placed various purchase orders on different dates to the plaintiff for the electrical goods. In pursuance to the said purchase orders, the plaintiff supplied electrical goods to the defendants and raised invoices no. 0099 of Rs. 81,040/, invoice no. 0098 of Rs. 75,808/, invoice no. 0111 of Rs. 14,112/, invoice no. 011 of Rs. 24,823/, invoice no. 012 of Rs. 26,510/, invoice no. 031 of Rs. 10,400/ and invoice no. 047 of Rs. 39,507/. The said invoices were duly received by the defendants on each and every occasions. Against the said invoices, the defendant made the payment of Rs. 25,000/ on 03.03.2008, Rs. 25,000/ on 05.03.2008, Rs. 50,000/ on 24.05.2008 and Rs. 50,000/ on 30.04.2009. It is stated that timely payment was the essence of contract between the parties. The defendants did not strictly adhere to the terms & conditions of the contract and as on 16.05.2009 an amount of Rs. 1,22,200/ is still outstanding. In order to clear their liabilities towards the plaintiff, the defendants had issued cheque bearing no. 000426 dated 12.05.2009 for an amount of Rs. CS No. 611/2011 Page No. 3 of 6 50,000/ and cheque bearing no. 000427 dated 12.05.2009 for an amount of Rs. 50,000/ both drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank. The plaintiff had deposited the aforesaid cheque with his banker for realization of the amount. However, on 09.06.2009, the said cheques were returned by the banker of the defendant on account of "payment stopped by drawer". The plaintiff informed the defendant no. 2 over the phone regarding the dishonour of the cheques but he deliberately avoided the call. It is pleaded that the plaintiff is maintaining regular books of account in the ordinary course of its business and as on 16.05.2009 an amount of Rs. 1,22,200/ is still outstanding and an amount of Rs. 88,977/ towards the interest as on 12.10.2011. The defendants are therefore liable to pay a total sum of Rs. 2,11,177/, which includes interest @ 18% per annum to the plaintiff. Despite various reminders and requests of plaintiff to the defendants, they did not pay any heed towards the demand made by the plaintiff.
3. The defendants were duly served with the summons of the suit. They did not appear to contest the suit filed by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the defendants were proceeded exparte vide order dated 07.02.2012. Thereafter, matter was fixed for exparte evidence of plaintiff.
4. In order to prove its case, the plaintiff got examined Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Kumar, the director of plaintiff company as PW1. The plaintiff CS No. 611/2011 Page No. 4 of 6 did not examine any other witness in support of its case. Accordingly plaintiff's evidence was closed on 12.03.2012.
5. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for plaintiff and have perused the record of the case.
6. Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Kumar, the director of the plaintiff company filed his evidence by way of affidavit wherein he has reiterated and re affirmed the same facts as has been stated in the plaint. In the course of his deposition, PW1 has proved the Board Resolution dated 06.10.2011 Ex.PW1/A whereby he was authorized to file the present suit against the defendants and depose in the case. He also proved purchase orders Ex.PW1/B placed by the defendants for supply of electrical goods, invoices Ex.PW1/C (colly.) raised by plaintiff upon the defendants, ledger account of defendants Ex.PW1/D; Chart disclosing the amount on account of delay Ex.PW1/E and emails Ex.PW1/F (colly.)
7. The testimony of PW1 has gone uncontroverted and unchallenged. He was not cross examined by the defendants on account of being exparte. Since the defendants failed to contest the suit of the plaintiff, therefore, the averments of the plaintiff being uncontroversial, are deemed to be proved. The claim made by the plaintiff in the present suit remained undisputed and thus, there is no reason to doubt about the genuineness of the claim made in the suit. The documents placed on record by the plaintiff shows the defendants placed various purchase CS No. 611/2011 Page No. 5 of 6 orders upon the plaintiff for supply of electrical goods. The plaintiff after supply of goods to the defendants as per their specifications raised invoices Ex.PW1/C (colly.). The ledger account of the defendants Ex.PW1/D maintained by the plaintiff in its regular course of business shows that as on 16.05.2009 an amount of Rs. 1,22,200/ is due and payable by the defendants. The defendants failed to clear their outstanding dues despite availing the services of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has proved its case against the defendants beyond all probability. The plaintiff has further succeeded to prove on record its entitlement for recovery of Rs. 2,11,177/ from the defendants. The defendants no. 2 being the proprietor of defendant no. 1 is liable to pay the outstanding dues of the plaintiff.
8. Hence, in the given circumstances as well as the submissions made by counsel for plaintiff, suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs against defendants. The defendant no. 2 being the proprietor of defendant no. 1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,11,177/ to the plaintiff. He is further directed to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the outstanding amount i.e. Rs.1,22,200/ from the date of filing of the suit till its realization. Decreesheet be prepared. File be consigned to record room.
(Announced in open Court (RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI)
on 12.03.2012) ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CS No. 611/2011 Page No. 6 of 6