Bangalore District Court
M/S. Aum Company vs M/S. Spencer International on 7 October, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE XXX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY
DATED THIS THE 7 th DAY OF OCTOBER 2020
-: PRESENT:-
SRI. MAANU K.S., B.Sc., LLB.
XXX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City
O.S.No.354/2017
PLAINTIFF : M/S. Aum Company,
No.89/3, 1st Floor, 4th Main Road,
Rajajinagar Industrial Town,
Bengaluru -560 044.
Rep.by its Proprietor Mr.Rajendra
N.Shastry.
(By Pleader Sri.Bipin Hegde).
/VS/
DEFENDANTS: 1.M/s. Spencer International
(Exports), No.4/341, Auto Nagar,
Ammanikondalampatty,
Salem - 636 010.
Rep.by Mr.R.P.Krishnamoorthy.
2.Mr.R.P.Krishnamoorthy,
S/o Palaniyappan,
No.44-47, 5th Seerangan Street,
Dadagapatti, Salem -636 006.
(Exparte.)
*****
2 O.S.No.354/2017.
DATE OF INSTITUTION 12-01-2017
NATURE OF THE SUIT (Suit on Suit for
Pronote, Suit for declaration and Recovery of
Possession, Suit for injunction, etc.) money.
DATE OF THE COMMENCEMENT
OF RECORDING OF THE EVIDENCE 30-08-2019
DATE ON WHICH THE JUDGEMENT
WAS PRONOUNCED 07-10-2020
TOTAL DURATION YEAR/S MONTH/S DAY/S
03 08 07
(MAANU K.S.),
XXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
3 O.S.No.354/2017.
JUDGEMENT
1. This is a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.7,65,000/- together with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. on principal amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- along with costs of the proceedings.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case are as under:
(a). It is the case of the plaintiff that it is a Paper Cup manufacturing unit having its factory at the cause title mentioned address and the 1st defendant being a proprietorship concern represented by its proprietor the 2nd defendant herein approached it for supply of plain disposable paper cups and used to place orders over telephone and accordingly, by raising the invoices, it used to supply the plain disposable cups to the 1 st defendant worth Rs. 4,50,000/- on various dates as per the invoices detailed in para-4 of its plaint.
That though it had supplied the paper cups worth Rs. 4,50,000/- on various dates, the 1 st defendant issued a cheque bearing No.030192 dtd.03-03- 2014 drawn on Axis Bank, Salem Branch for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards clearance of the existing liability of Rs. 4,50,000/- and further requested for supply of paper cups worth Rs. 50,000/- and when the said cheque was presented by it for encashment, the same came to be dishonoured with endorsement 'funds insufficient' and as such, 4 O.S.No.354/2017. it did not supply the paper cups for Rs. 50,000/- as requested by the 1st defendant.
(b). It further contended that immediately after the dishonour of the cheque issued by the defendant No.1, it brought the said fact to the notice of the defendant No.1 represented by defendant No.2 who by assigning a reason that there was some financial problems due to which the cheque could not be honoured, requested it to re-present the same assuring that the cheque will be honoured this time and based on the said assurance, it re-presented the said cheque for encashment on 13-05-2014 which again came to be dishonoured for the same reason and again on bringing the same to the notice of the defendants, they again gave some lame excuses and asked it to re-present the same once again and believing the said words, it re-presented the said cheque for third time and for its disappointment, the said cheque came to be dishonoured on 03-06-2014 for the reason 'instrument outdated'. As such, the plaintiff met the defendant No.2 personally on many occasions both in Bengaluru and Salem and requested him personally and also over telephone to clear the outstanding due of Rs. 4,50,000/-, but the defendants went on dodging the payment of the outstanding dues by giving one or the other reasons. As such, it got issued legal notice dtd.30- 09-2014 demanding a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/-
5 O.S.No.354/2017.towards supply of paper cups along with interest of Rs. 38,000/- at the rate of 24% p.a. till 30-09-2014 totally amounting to Rs. 4,88,000/-within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice and despite receipt of the said notice on the defendant No.1, the defendant No.1 has neither made the payment of entire amount nor issued any reply and deliberately refused to make payment of the outstanding dues with an intention to cheat it.
(c). It further contended that since the transaction between it and the defendants is a commercial transaction, the defendants are liable to pay the interest at the rate of 24% p.a. on the delayed payment and as on the date of filing the suit, the defendants were liable to pay the principle amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- and interest of Rs. 3,15,000/- at the rate of 24% p.a. and as such, it has come up with this suit for recovery of the said dues along with future interest and prayed to decree the suit.
3. After institution of the suit, the suit summons were issued to the defendants through RPAD and the same were returned unserved and thereafter, summons was taken by way of paper publication and the same has been duly published in daily newspaper "Hindhu Tamil" dtd. 18-06-2019. Despite service of said summons, the defendants 6 O.S.No.354/2017. remained absent, hence, they were placed exparte and the case was posted for plaintiff's evidence.
4. In order to substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the proprietor of the plaintiff concern got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P.1 and P.18(a). Since the defendants were placed exparte, cross-examination of P.W.1 was taken as nil and the case was posted for arguments.
5.Heard the arguments of the counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the materials placed on record.
6. The following points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the plaintiff has established that it had supplied the paper cups to the defendants to the tune of Rs.
4,50,000/- under various invoices as mentioned in para-4 of the plaint?
2. Whether the plaintiff has established that the 1st defendant represented by the 2nd defendant had issued a cheque bearing No.030192 dtd.03-03-2014 for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards the dues payable to it with a request for supply of paper cups worth Rs.
50,000/- and failed to get the said cheque honoured when presented for encashment?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of a sum of Rs.7,65,000/- with future interest at 24% p.a.?
4. What order or decree?
7 O.S.No.354/2017.7. My answers to the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the affirmative. Point No.2 : In the affirmative. Point No.3 : Partly in the affirmative. Point No.4 : As per the final order for the following:
REASONS
8.POINTS NO.1 TO 3:- Since these points are interconnected with each other, to avoid repetition of averments and appreciation of evidence, these points are taken up together for discussion.
9. The proprietor of the plaintiff Mr.Rajendra N.Shastry while examining himself as P.W.1 has reiterated the plaint averments and got marked 18 documents as per Ex.P. 1 to P.18. Perusal of the said documents clearly reveals that the plaintiff had supplied the paper cups worth Rs. 4,50,000/- to the defendants on various dates from 14-01-2014 to 10-02-2014 under sale invoices which have been marked as Ex.P. 5 to P.10. Ex.P.11 to P.13 are some of the receipts cum luggage slips issued by Shiva Transport Company in respect of the paper cups supplied by the plaintiff to deliver the same to the defendants, which shows that the said paper cups supplied by the plaintiff to the defendants through Shiva Transport Company. Ex.P.1 cheque bearing No.030192 dtd.03-03-2014 issued in favour of the 8 O.S.No.354/2017. plaintiff by the defendants for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- drawn on Axis Bank clearly demonstrates that the defendants by acknowledging the receipt of the said paper cups supplied by the plaintiff under Ex.P.5 to P.10, had issued the said cheque, which came to be dishonoured for insufficient funds as per Ex.P. 2 to P.4 on presentation.
10. Since, it is the specific case of the plaintiff, the proprietor of which has duly sworn to an affidavit stating that the said cheque was issued towards the supply of the paper cups under Ex.P. 5 to P.10 with a request to supply the paper cups worth Rs. 50,000/- and that since the said cheque came to be dishonoured for want of funds, he has stopped supplying the paper cups for the remaining amount of Rs. 50,000/- and that the defendants remained silent in spite of issuance of legal notice as per Ex.P. 14, which has been duly posted as per Ex.P. 15 and P.16 and duly acknowledged as per Ex.P. 17 and since the said oral and documentary evidence remained unchallenged as the defendants remained absent inspite of service of summons and were placed exparte, there is no reason for this Court to disbelieve the oral and documentary evidence led in by P.W.1. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has established the supply of paper cups worth Rs. 4,50,000/- and that the defendants had issued the said cheque, which 9 O.S.No.354/2017. came to be dishonoured on presentation and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the said sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- along with interest.
11. The plaintiff has sought for interest at the rate of 24% p.a. contending that the transaction between itself and the defendants is a commercial transaction and that the defendants are liable to pay the interest at the rate of 24% p.a. on the outstanding dues. However, the plaintiff has notj produced a single scrap of paper to show that the defendants have agreed to pay the interest at such a high rate in respect of the delayed payments. Though the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendants is a commercial transaction, this Court is of the opinion that the interest claimed by the plaintiff is exorbitant. Merely because there is no agreement regarding the rate of interest, that by itself will not disentitle the plaintiff to claim the reasonable rate of interest. Therefore, if the defendants are directed to pay the said principal amount of Rs.4,50,000/- along with past interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of issuance of cheque i.e. 03-03-2014 till the date of filing the suit with current and future interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from the date of filing the suit till realization, the same would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, I answer points No.1 & 2 in the affirmative and point No.3 partly in the affirmative.
10 O.S.No.354/2017.12. POINT NO.4:- In view of the above discussion and my answers to points No.1 to 3 as above, the suit of the plaintiff deserves to be decreed in part with costs. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed in part with proportionate costs.
The plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendants a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) along with past interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from 03-03-2014 till the date of filing the suit and current and future interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from the date of filing the suit till realization, The defendants are hereby directed to pay the decreetal amount to the plaintiff within 3 months from the date of this judgment and decree.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer on computer, transcribed thereof, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this THE 7 TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 ).
( MAANU K.S.), XXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.11 O.S.No.354/2017.
ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF/S:
P.W. 1 Rajendra N. Shastri.
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANTS/S:
NIL.
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFF/S:
Ex.P.1 Cheque. Ex.P.1(a) Signature. Ex.P.2 to P.4 Bank endorsements. Ex.P.5 to 10 Cash Bills. Ex.P.11to 13 Luggage slips. Ex.P.14 Copy of Legal notice. Ex.P.15 & 16 Postal Receipts. Ex.P.17 Postal acknowledgement. Ex.P. 18 Unserved postal cover. Ex.P.18(a) Notice.
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENDANTS/S:
NIL.
( MAANU K.S.), XXX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.