Delhi District Court
M/S 'I' M vs Sh. Arjun Kapoor on 11 November, 2019
In the Court of Ms. Vineeta Goyal: Additional District Judge03 (South
District) Saket Court Complex, New Delhi.
Suit No.: 193/2018
CNR No : DLST010013382018
In the matter of :
M/s 'I' M, The Centre For Applied Arts
Having its office at
A15, Lajpat NagarII
New Delhi110024 ......Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. Sh. Arjun Kapoor
"Anjalee And Arjun Kapoor"
Fashion Designers
1 AQ, Opposite Qutub Minar
Mehrauli Road
New Delhi110030
2. Ms. Anjalee Kapoor
"Anjalee And Arjun Kapoor"
Fashion Designers
1 AQ, Opposite Qutub Minar
Mehrauli Road
New Delhi110030 .....Defendants
Date of institution : 23.02.2018
Reserved for Judgment : 24.10.2019
Date of decision : 11.11.2019
Appearance: Sh. Sanjeev Goyal, counsel for the plaintiff.
Sh. Medhanshu Tripathi with Sh. Satish Rana,
counsels for the defendants.
CS No: 193/18 Page no. 1 of 19
SUIT FOR RECOVERY
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of ₹54,85,740/ (Rupees Fifty Four Lacs Eighty Five Thousand Seven Hundred Forty only) alongwith pendente lite and future interest against the defendants.
2. Facts in brief are that the plaintiff is a registered partnership firm having two partners namely Ms. Punam Kalra and Sh. Deepak Kalra, HUF. The plaintiff is engaged in the business of providing consultancy services, interior designing and customization and supply of furniture and accessories for houses, offices and hospitalities and trading of various kinds of materials/ fabrics/ furniture for such customization/ designs. The defendants are fashion designers working under the name and style of "Anjalee and Arjun Kapoor Fashion Designers".
2.1 The plaintiff averred that the defendants are known to plaintiff for several years and have long standing relationship. The plaintiff has rendered professional services and supplied furniture worth lacs of rupees to the defendants and their company namely M/s Surya Design Line Pvt. Ltd. in the past as well. Earlier, the plaintiff has also done interior designing, supplied fabric material/ leather and supplied customized furniture to the defendants' stores at Mumbai and Delhi.
2.2. It is further averred that the defendants approached the plaintiff CS No: 193/18 Page no. 2 of 19 in year 2014 for hiring plaintiff's professional services in interior designing, supply and customization of designer furniture and accessories in the defendant's house at N39, Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi. The defendants assured that once the furniture and accessories are supplied and customized by the plaintiff and invoices are raised, the defendants shall make the payments against the same immediately. Keeping in consideration long standing past relationship with the defendants, accordingly, the plaintiff did the interior designing of the defendants' house at Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi and supplied and customized the highend designer furniture and accessories for the same as per defendants' requirement during the year 2014 and 2015. Defendant no. 2 finalized the design aspect of the furniture and accordingly, the plaintiff supplied furniture and accessories worth ₹33,00,000/ exclusive of Sales Tax and raised invoice no. 20142015/707 dt. 03.03.2015 for ₹13,20,750/, invoice no. 20152016/765 dt. 05.10.2015 for a sum of ₹10,71,000/ and invoice no. 20152016/766 dt. 06.10.2015 for a sum of ₹9,83,250/ after due approval of the same by the defendants. The defendants utilized the furniture supplied by the plaintiff for their own benefit in their house. The plaintiff also charged ₹3,75,000/ towards Sales Tax @ 12.5% on the said amount of ₹30 lacs under the aforementioned invoices. The plaintiff has already deposited said tax to the Sales Tax Authority during the relevant period.
2.3. It is further averred that in terms of specific understanding arrived between the parties, as is also discernible from the terms and conditions mentioned on the respective invoice(s) itself, the defendants CS No: 193/18 Page no. 3 of 19 are required to make payment on respective invoice dates failing which defendants agreed to pay a further interest @ 24% per annum on the outstanding amount from the respective date on invoice. The goods/ furniture supplied by plaintiff under various invoices were duly accepted, without demur, and utilized by the defendants.
2.4. It is further averred that defendants failed to make payment and plaintiff's Managing Partner sent several text messages and emails dt. 19.12.2015 and 25.01.2016 to the defendant no. 1 asking him to release the payments. The plaintiff requested the defendant several times verbally by meeting personally and also via phone to clear the outstanding dues, however, the defendant kept on seeking some more time to make payments and no payment has been made till date. The plaintiff got served a legal notice dt. 02.08.2016 upon the defendants for a sum of ₹42,28,530/ (₹ 33,75,000/ (principal + Sales Tax) + ₹8,53,530/ ( agreed interest from date of respective invoices till date of notice)). Upon receipt of legal notice, the defendants approached plaintiff and pleaded temporary financial constrains seeking one year's period to clear all outstanding dues alongwith interest, to which the plaintiff agreed. Despite best cooperation by the plaintiff, the defendants failed to keep their promise.
2.5. It is further averred that the plaintiff again served a legal notice dt. 03.02.2018 upon the defendants. The defendants neither replied to said notice nor made any payment. The plaintiff claimed that the plaintiff is entitled for decree of ₹54,85,740/ including ₹33,75,000/ CS No: 193/18 Page no. 4 of 19 towards principal and ₹21,10,740/ towards the agreed rate of interest @ 24% p.a. on the delayed payment from the date of respective invoices till the date of filing of present suit. The suit is within the period of limitation and this Court has territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate this suit, hence this suit.
3. Pursuant to summon issued, the defendants appeared and filed joint written statement inter alia taking preliminary objections including that no cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants; that the defendants did not purchase anything from the plaintiff in the year 2014 and 2015 and purported invoices filed by the plaintiff are forged and fabricated documents; that defendants never approached plaintiff for interior designing and purchase of furniture for their house at N39, Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi and that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff with malicious and malafide intentions to extort money from the defendants.
3.1. On merits, it is submitted that defendants had never approached the plaintiff for hiring its professional services for interior designing of their house at N39 Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi at any point of time. It is further submitted that in year 201213, the defendants purchased some furniture from the plaintiff for their company M/s Surya Design Line Pvt. Ltd. and made payments to the plaintiff and cleared all accounts with them. The purported invoices filed by the plaintiff are forged, bogus and fabricated to blackmail and extort money from the defendants. The defendants had never purchased any interior CS No: 193/18 Page no. 5 of 19 items, furniture and accessories for their house from the plaintiff, as such the question of charging Sales Tax @ 12.5% from the defendants does not arise. The defendants did not receive any notice dt. 02.08.2016. The notice dt. 03.02.2018 sent by the plaintiff is wrong and denied. The defendants are not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiffs as no order has been placed by the defendants in year 2014 and 2015 for interior designing of their house or for purchase of furniture and accessories for their house at Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi. All other contents of the plaint are denied. On these grounds, it is prayed that the present suit of the plaintiff deserves dismissal.
4. The plaintiff filed replication to the joint written statement denying the contentions of the defendants and reiterating and reaffirming the averments of the plaint.
5. Upon pleadings of parties, following issues have been framed on 18.08.2018:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for sum of Rs.54,85,740/ (principal amount of Rs.33,75,000/ + interest Rs.21,10,740/) from the defendant as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to any pendente lite as well as future interest? If so at what rate and for what period? OPP
3. Whether the suit is without any cause of action? OPD
4. Relief.
6. To prove its case, the plaintiff got examined two witnesses. Ms. CS No: 193/18 Page no. 6 of 19 Punam Kalra, Partner of plaintiff firm was examined as PW1. She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit of PW1/1 and made statement in consonance with the averments made in the plaint. To support the claim of the plaintiff, she produced and relied upon several documents viz. True copies of Registration cum Partnership Deed dated 31.04.2003 alongwith Form 'A' and Form 'B' Ex. PW1/A (colly) (OSR), plaintiff's copies of Invoices dated 03.03.2015, 05.10.2015 and 06.10.2015 acknowledge by Ms. Shobhna, the employee of defendant Ex. PW1/B (colly), Statement of Account for the year 01.04.2014 (inadvertently mentioned as 01.04.2000) to 31.03.2016 Ex. PW1/C, copies of Sale Tax Return for the quarter JanuaryMarch, 2015 and October-December, 2015 Mark '1' and Mark '2', true copies of Sales Register for the period 01.01.2015 to 31.03.2015 & 01.10.2015 to 31.12.2015 Ex. PW1/D &Ex.
PW1/E, Certificate U/s. 65 B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW1/F, Photographs of the furniture from plaintiff's product catalogue Ex. PW 1/G (colly), Certificate U/s. 65 B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW1/N (erroneously mentioned as Ex. PW1/H in evidence affidavit), printouts of text messages exchanged between the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 on Cell Phone during the relevant period and Email dated 19.12.2015 and 25.01.2016 send by the plaintiff to the defendant Ex. PW1/H (colly), office copy of Legal Demand Notice dated 02.08.2016 alongwith postal dispatch receipts Ex. PW1/I & Ex. PW1/J (colly), office copy of Legal Demand Notice dated 05.02.2018 alongwith postal dispatch receipts & tracking report Ex. PW1/K, Ex. PW1/L (colly) & Ex. PW1/M (colly). She was crossexamined at length by the opposite counsel.
CS No: 193/18 Page no. 7 of 19 6.1 The plaintiff further examined PW2 Sh. N.S. Rawat from
Department of Trade and Taxes, who produced the record pertaining to Online Sales Tax return filed by the plaintiff for the period 01.01.2015 31.12.2015 and 01.01.201531.03.2015 as Ex. PW2/A (colly). The plaintiff thereafter closed its evidence.
6.2. On the other hand, the defendants examined Sh. Arjun Kapoor as DW1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW1/A deposing on the lines of contentions made in the written statement. DW1 was crossexamined by counsel for the plaintiff. The defendants, thereafter closed their evidence.
7. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff argued that from the deposition of PW1 Ms Punam Kalra, it is established on record that plaintiff is a partnership firm engaged in supply of customized furniture and supplied various pieces of residential furniture for the defendants house, as per oral orders in year 20142015, which furniture had been utilized by the defendants but the defendants did not make any payment in respect thereof. The plaintiff proved the liability of the defendants by proving statement of accounts of defendants. The defendants did not dispute the Sale Tax Returns of plaintiff and PW2 Sh. N.S. Rawat, the official from Sale Tax Department was not cross examined by the defendants on any aspect. It is next argued that invoices Ex. PW1/B (colly) were duly acknowledged by one Shobhana Sidhu, the staff employee of defendants at the relevant time and this fact has not been disputed by the defendants even its evidence or in CS No: 193/18 Page no. 8 of 19 crossexamination of PW1. It is further argued that plaintiff has also filed the photographs of furniture from its product catalogue Ex. PW1/G which products are duly reflected in the fashion profiling of defendant's house in the said Good Homes Magazine. The defendants did not dispute the picture from product catalogue of plaintiff. The plaintiff has further proved sending several SMSs to the defendant's phone particularly the SMS dt. 15.12.2015 and emails dt. 19.12.2015 and 25.01.2016 demanding defendants for release of payments Ex. PW1/H (colly), the receipt of which has been duly acknowledged and admitted by the defendant in his crossexamination. The plaintiff has also proved the demand notice dt. 02.08.2016 Ex.PW1/I sent to the defendants calling upon defendants to pay ₹42,28,530/ being ₹33,75,000/ principal amount and ₹8,53,530/ towards agreed interest and second demand notice dt. 03.02.2018 Ex.PW1/K finally calling upon the defendants to pay ₹54,45,796/ being ₹33,75,000/ principal amount and ₹20,70,796/ towards agreed interest alongwith future interest. It is argued that receipt of said demand notice has been duly acknowledged and admitted by defendant's witness in his crossexamination. It is further argued that defendants had purchased furniture for their residence which is not owned by M/s Surya Design Line Pvt. Ltd. M/s Surya Design Line Pvt. Ltd. is a distinct juristic entity and cannot made purchases for residence of the defendants.
7.1. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the defendants argued that the defendants never approached the plaintiff for its professional service of their house at any point of time. The defendants had never raised any CS No: 193/18 Page no. 9 of 19 order to the plaintiff or purchased any interior items/ goods from the plaintiff. The suit is barred by limitation as the furniture alleged to be purchased by the defendants from plaintiff appears in Good Home Magazine, July 2014 issue and the invoices Ex. PW1/B (colly) and Sale Tax Returns Ex. PW2/A were fabricated so as to bring the suit within the period of limitation. The furniture / goods in question have been sold not to the defendants in the individual capacity but goods have been sold to their company namely Surya Designs Line Pvt. Ltd. for which payment has already been made. If anything have been purchased in lieu thereof cash has been paid.
7.2. In rebuttal, it is argued by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that the defendants did not place on record any proof of payment nor the statement of account of Surya Designs Line Pvt. Ltd. When defendant no. 1 was confronted with tax invoice Ex.PW1/P1 and ledger statement of account of M/s Surya Design Line Pvt. Ltd. PW1/D1 as per the plaintiff's books, it shows that no furniture was purchased by the said company in year 20122013 but only leather rolls were sourced by the said company from plaintiff for which the payment has been made through cheques. Statement of accounts of M/s Surya Design Line Pvt. Ltd. filed by the plaintiff is only in respect of pucca bills and the defendants failed to produce any document about existence of any parallel account. It is further argued that no evidence has been led by the defendants to prove that purported invoices filed by the plaintiff are forged and fabricated. The acknowledgment/ signatures of employee of defendants on the invoices or her authority to receive invoices has not CS No: 193/18 Page no. 10 of 19 been disputed by the defendants. The defendants have failed to discharge the onus as per Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the onus to prove existence of fraud/ fabrication if any, was upon the defendants. It is further argued that DW1 when confronted with SMS dt. 18.03.2015 at C1 to C2 and D1 to D2, the DW1 has acknowledged the time delay in payment. It is further argued that conflicting stands have been taken by the defendant witness. In affidavit of evidence, it is stated that no furniture was purchased from plaintiff for their house while appearing into witness box, it was deposed that furniture was for their house was purchased in year 2009, 2010 and 2011 and further submitted that furniture had been purchased the company M/s Surya Designs Line Pvt. Ltd. in 2013. It is next argued that the plea of limitation was never raised in the pleadings neither any issue has been framed nor any evidence has been led by the defendants on this aspect. It is further argued that in the process of customization, the furniture and the embedded accessories are generally modified, amended time and again till the client is completely satisfied and its only when the entire modification/ alterations were done, the final bills/ invoices were made in respect thereof.
8. I have heard arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. My issuewise findings is as under:
CS No: 193/18 Page no. 11 of 19 Issue no(s). 1 and 2
8.1. Both these issues are taken up together being interconnected for appreciation of evidence and adjudication. Onus to prove these issues are on the plaintiff.
8.2. The plaintiff, in order to establish its case examined Ms. Punam Kalra, PW1. She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.PW1/1. She has proved registration certificate of firm Ex. PW1/A and testified that plaintiff is competent to sue in its name as per the provisions of Section 69 of Indian Partnership Act. She deposed that in 20142015, the defendants approached the plaintiff for supply and customization of furniture for their residential house. The defendants are known to the plaintiff for several years and earlier the plaintiff has also rendered services and supplied furniture to M/s Surya Design Line Pvt. Ltd., a company owned by the defendants. Plaintiff supplied and customized various pieces of residential furniture for the defendants in year 2014 2015 and supplied furniture worth ₹33,75,000/. The plaintiff relies upon sale invoices dt. 06.10.2015 for an amount of ₹9,83,250/, invoice dt. 05.10.2015 for an amount of ₹10,71,000/ and invoice dt. 03.03.2015 for an amount of ₹13,20,750/. All these invoices have been exhibited as Ex. PW1/B (colly). PW1 in her deposition proved statement of accounts of defendants as per plaintiff's book Ex. PW1/C and Sale Tax register for relevant period Ex. PW1/D. 8.3 The plaintiff, further in discharge of its onus of supply of CS No: 193/18 Page no. 12 of 19 furniture items heavily relied upon copy of magazine Good Home Ex. P.1 wherein the residential house of defendants was fashion profiled. Although, PW1 was extensively crossexamined by the defendants, they failed to bring out any loopholes in the case set up by the plaintiff or shake the veracity / credit worthiness / truthfulness of PW1. PW1 in her deposition and crossexamination satisfactorily explained that customized furniture is the one which is made according to specification and taste of the client doing the style, the color, size, the finish and the particular design. This witness also claims that for individual clients, where the relationship is longer, it is practiced to finalize the design of customization by sitting with them. By placing reliance upon the copy of magazine Good Home Ex. P.1, the plaintiff pointed out that it was specifically reported at A1 to A2 that the defendants have procured / sourced design furniture from two persons namely Puran Kalra and Rasee Gujral. This profiling article also contains specific pictures of furniture lying at the house of defendants. It was reaffirmed during crossexamination that furniture was given in the year 2014 which was customized and finished in year 2015 and bills were raised and their Senior Store Manager received them. PW1 was also questioned regarding terms of contract, she categorically stated that there were no written contract meaning thereby it was orally agreed between the parties for supply of customized furniture for the residential house of the defendants.
8.4 Further, the plaintiff in order to demolish the contention raised by the defendants that goods/ furniture in question have been sold not CS No: 193/18 Page no. 13 of 19 to the defendants in individual capacity but have been sold to their company namely M/s Surya Design Line Pvt. Ltd. for which the payment has already been made, the plaintiff has explained that there was only a solitary transaction of sale of leather role to M/s Surya Design Line Pvt. Ltd. by the plaintiff in the financial year 20122013 for an amount of ₹6,30,000/. The plaintiff has also placed on record evidence to show that aforesaid amount had been received.
8.5. The plaintiff further to establish its case, examined Sh. N.S. Rawat, official from Sale Tax Department who proved transaction to the defendants from Sale Tax Return for the relevant period Ex. PW2/A. 8.6. From the aforesaid, the plaintiff has been successful in discharging the burden of proof by proving the transaction of supply of furniture for the residence of the defendants through invoices Ex.PW1/B (colly), statement of accounts of the defendants Ex.PW1/C, sale tax registers Ex.PW1/D as per its account books and sale tax return Ex.PW2/A. 8.7. On the other hand, the defendants, in order to disprove the case of the plaintiff, examined Sh. Arjun Kapoor as DW1 who is in his affidavit Ex. DW1/A deposed on the lines of defence taken by him in the written statement. It is alleged by the defendants that defendants had neither approached the plaintiff for hiring its professional services for interior designing of their house at any point of time. The purported invoices Ex. PW1/B are forged and fabricated documents. The furniture CS No: 193/18 Page no. 14 of 19 was purchased by its company M/s Surya Design Line Pvt. Ltd. in year 201213 and all the payments in respect thereof have been made. But, during crossexamination, the truthfulness and veracity of DW1 has come to serious question. DW1 when confronted with the items/ furnitures in magazine Good Home, he admitted that these items have been sourced from Punam Kalra. The relevant extract of cross examination is reproduced as under:
"It is correct that I have got fashion profiling of my house done by living media Pvt. Ltd for its magazine Good Home. ..........
Q - Can you tell from the pictures in Ex P1 which of the furniture from Raseel Gujral and which of the furniture from Punam Kalra.
A - The product marked as C1, C2, C3, C4, C5 are source from Raseel Gujral and the products marked from D1(ss consol), D2(Dining table with five chairs), D3, D4(bed), D5(bed side table), D6(Bar), D7(table),D8(Dining table), D9(Mirror chairs), D10(rose quartz table), D11(Consol) and D12 (onyx consol) are sourced from Punam Kalra. Vol. Many accessories, lights, pillow covers etc. were sourced from different sources."
8.8 The reliability of DW1 further comes in question as during course of crossexamination, when DW1 was confronted with Tax Invoice Ex. DW1/P1 and ledger statement of accounts of M/s Surya Design Line Pvt. Ltd. Ex. PW1/D1 as per the plaintiff's books, this witness raised a plea that statement of accounts of the said company filed by plaintiff is only in respect of pucca bills and rest was all paid in cash in the year 2012. However, DW1 failed to produce any document about existence of any parallel account and further failed to prove that defendants have ever made any payment against the furniture CS No: 193/18 Page no. 15 of 19 purchased by them for their house from plaintiff in cash or otherwise as alleged by him in crossexamination. On the contrary, the plaintiff has placed on record sufficient evidence to show that amount of ₹6,30,000/ for the solitary transaction of sale of leather rolls has been received and therefore this transaction cannot be mixed with the transaction of making sales of furniture/ goods as above. Further, in respect of cash payment, the plaintiff specifically put the questions to the defendant appearing as witness/ DW1 regarding any document about cash payment to which the witness replied in negative, it would show that payment by cash is mere bald assertion without any documentary evidence.
8.9. The defence of the defendants that pictures appeared in Good Home magazine in July, 2014 issues which were taken in December, 2013 whereas the invoices Ex. PW1/B (colly) issued by the plaintiff are much later is without any substance. This aspect has been successfully explained by the plaintiff appearing as PW1 by deposing that goods and furniture supplied by the plaintiff are customized according to the needs of clients, therefore, final invoices of sales are not issued until and unless the design and specification are approved by the customers. The explanation of the plaintiff has withstood in crossexamination, therefore, believable. There is no merit in the contentions of the defendant that the claim of the plaintiff is barred by limitation.
8.10. Another feeble attempt has been made by the defendants to wriggle out of liability by pleading and placing lease deed March 2016 CS No: 193/18 Page no. 16 of 19 Mark A that in the year 2016, the defendants have moved out of premises where the Good Home magazine shows to have furniture. However, such contention would not help the case of defendants because after having supplied the furniture as per invoices, it makes no difference whether or not defendants continued to be in the premises or vacate the same. The liability of the defendants towards the plaintiff is on account of furniture/ items having sold and delivered as has been established irrespective of the fact whether the defendants have kept those articles in any of the premises.
8.11. In the light of evidence as discussed above, the plaintiff has been successful in showing that transaction with the defendants are integral part of books of accounts which are kept in regular course of business. Another piece of evidence adduced by the plaintiff was that of SMSs exchanged between the plaintiff and defendants from C.1 to C.2 and D.1 to D.2 backed by appropriate certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Ex. PW1/F. In these SMSs the plaintiff has claimed the outstanding amount of approximately ₹30 lacs to which the defendants have assured to make certain steps. The plaintiff has been successful in leading evidence to the effect that goods of the description mentioned in sale invoices dated 06.10.2015 for an amount of ₹9,83,250/, invoice dated 05.10.2015 for an amount of ₹10,71,000/ and invoice dated 03.03.2015 for an amount of ₹13,20,750/ as Ex.PW1/B (colly) has been delivered to the defendants. The plaintiff further proved that above mentioned invoices were handed over to Ms. Shobnath Sidhu, the employee of the defendants. The deposition of the plaintiff on CS No: 193/18 Page no. 17 of 19 the invoices has remained firm on the ground during crossexamination. The plaintiff has established that material / goods as mentioned in above invoices making a total of ₹33,75,000/ have been supplied to the defendants and defendants have not made the payment for the same. The plaintiff is entitled for this amount from the defendant.
8.12 In so far as claim of the plaintiff for charging interest @ 24% p.a. is concerned on the ground that all these invoices Ex.PW1/B(colly) in the terms and condition such chargeable interest has been mentioned on the delayed payment is not acceptable as such. It is no more res integra that purpose of mentioning exorbitant interest is not to lay down the condition of reimbursement of such interest but the intentional always is to secure the enforecement of contract between the parties. Such a rate of interest amounts to charging of penal interest whereas it is admitted fact between the parties that customized furniture/ goods are delivered first and the invoice is raised at much later point of time once the customer is satisfied. This aspect would show that time is not essence of contract and therefore, it would be appropriate if the plaintiff is allowed 8% p.a. rate of interest on the outstanding amount from the date of last invoice i.e. 06.10.2015 till the filing of suit. The plaintiff is also entitled pendente lite and future interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of suit till its realization. Both the issues are decided accordingly, in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Issue no. 3 8.13 The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendants. The CS No: 193/18 Page no. 18 of 19 defendants have failed to prove their defence. On the contrary, the plaintiff has been able to prove its case on the scale of preponderance of probabilities and is entitled for decree for a sum of ₹33,75,000/ alongwith interest, hence, defendants failed to establish absence of cause of action, accordingly, this issue is decided against the defendants.
Relief
9. In view of above discussion, the suit of the plaintiff stands decreed. The plaintiff is entitled for sum of ₹33,75,000/ alongwith interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of last invoice raised i.e. 06.10.2015 till the date of filing of suit and further entitled to pendente lite and future interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of suit till its realization from the defendants who are jointly and severally liable. Cost of the suit is also awarded in favor of the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
Pronounced in the Open Court on 11.11.2019 (Vineeta Goyal) Additional District Judge03 South District: Saket: New Delhi CS No: 193/18 Page no. 19 of 19