Bangalore District Court
M/S Ehm Technology (India) Pvt. Ltd vs M/S Veeyem Interiors (I) Pvt. Ltd on 6 April, 2021
1 Com.O.S.No.6654/2019
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXXVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (EXCLUSIVE DEDICATED COMMERCIAL
COURT): BENGALURU CITY. (CCH-89)
Present: Sri. P.J. SOMASHEKARA, B.A.,LL.M,
LXXXVIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge
Bengaluru City.
Dated this the 6th day of April 2021
Com.O.S.No.6654/2019
Plaintiff: M/s EHM Technology (India) Pvt. Ltd.,
No.8, Ayyappa Block, Kogilu Village,
Agrahara Main Road, Yelahanka,
Bangalore - 64,
Represented by its Director,
Sri. Ram Babu.
(By Sri. A.V.K.., Advocate)
-vs-
Defendant: M/s Veeyem Interiors (I) Pvt. Ltd.,
Gala No.1, Pawar House, Opp. RBI
Quarters, Kamal Sagar Road,
Bhandup (East), Mumbai - 400078.
Maharashtra,
Also available at: 1 st Floor,
189 Byatarayanapura,
Bengaluru (Bangalore) Urban,
Karnataka - 560 064.
Rep. by its Directors
Smt. Netra Vijaykumar Menon -
Director.
(By Sri. B.L.T., Advocate)
Nature of the suit Money suit
Date of institution of the 11.09.2019
suit
Date of commencement of 05.03.2021
2 Com.O.S.No.6654/2019
recording of the evidence
Date on which the 06.04.2021
judgment was pronounced
Total duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
01 06 26
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of Rs.3,64,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of the suit till its realization.
2. Brief facts of the plaint are as under :
The plaintiff in its plaint has alleged that the defendant has placed the orders for delivery of building materials which stated below:
Purchase Invoice No. Date Amount Materials order No. 1748 771 Dec 19, 2017 69,500-00 ACC 43 grade cement 1775 796 Dec 31, 2017 156624.64 Wash Basin CAT 91065 Hindware 1786 806 Jan 2, 2018 340883.48 EWC WM Splendor SW9252 1801 822 Jan 6, 2018 29569.05 Plastering Msand 1803 824 Jan 6, 2018 72500.00 ACC 43 Grade Cement 1805 826 Jan 9, 2018 31800.00 Dyna Urinal CAT No.60010 Hindware 1850 869 Feb 12, 2018 30833.25 Plastering Msand 1855 874 Feb 14, 2018 47575.00 ACC 53 Grade cement Grand Total 779285.42 3 Com.O.S.No.6654/2019
3. The defendant in order to discharge legally enforceable debt has issued below mentioned cheques drawn on GSB Co- operative Bank, Mumbai.
Cheque No. Date Amount
18181 20-06-2018 150000.00
18232 06-09-2018 150000.00
18233 08-09-2018 52271.00
18182 25-06-2018 150000.00
18231 05-09-2018 150000.00
18183 09-06-281 82322.00
Total 734593.00
4. The defendant has requested to present the said cheques for collection thereby has presented the cheques through its bank ICICI bank, RPC Layout Branch and the said cheques are returned with an endorsement 'insufficient funds' in the account of the defendant. So after receipt of the intimation repeatedly has requested the defendant personally as well as through telephone, but the defendant failed to make the payment and postpone the same for one or the other reason. Thus got issued legal notice to the defendant on 12.10.2018 to calling upon the defendant for payment of Rs.7,34,593/- in respect of the dishonour of the cheque within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice, but after receipt of the notice, the defendant did not pay full cheque amount instead has paid Rs.3,70,593/- and failed to pay the balance sum of Rs.3,64,000/-. Thus the cause of action for the 4 Com.O.S.No.6654/2019 suit which arose on 19.12.2017 when the materials have been delivered to the defendant and on 12.10.2018 when the legal notice has been issued to the defendant and on subsequent dates when the defendant failed to repay the amount within the jurisdiction of this court and prays for decree the suit.
5. In response of the suit summons, the defendant has been appeared through its counsel, in spite of sufficient time granted, did not file the written statement, thereby the written statement of the defendant taken as not filed.
6. The plaintiff in order to prove its plaint averments has examined its Director as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P.1 to P.27. The plaintiff has not examined any witnesses in its favour. The defendant has not examined its directors nor examined any witness in its favour.
7. Heard the arguments on the plaintiff side and taken as no arguments on defendant's side.
8. Now the points that arise for court consideration are:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for?
2. What order or decree?5 Com.O.S.No.6654/2019
9. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative; Point No.2: As per final order, for the following;
REASONS
10. POINT NO.1: The plaintiff has approached the court on the ground that the defendant has placed the orders for delivery of building materials, accordingly he has delivered the building materials to the defendant for which the defendant has issued the cheques. After presentation, the said cheques are dishonoured for want of sufficient funds, though this fact was brought to the notice of the defendant, but did not pay the entire cheque amount, instead has paid part of the amount of Rs.3,70,593/- but failed to pay the balance amount, thereby the plaintiff has filed the instant suit against the defendant.
11. The plaintiff in order to prove the plaint averments has examined its Director as PW.1 who filed his affidavit as his chief- examination by reiterating the contents of the plaint stating that the defendant has placed the orders for delivery of the building materials, accordingly he has delivered the building materials, for which the defendant has issued cheques to discharge the legally recoverable debt and assured that if those cheques are presented it would be honoured. Accordingly, he has presented the cheques for collection and the cheques are returned with an endorsement 6 Com.O.S.No.6654/2019 insufficient funds in the defendant's account, though this fact was brought to the notice of the defendant through the legal notice, the defendant has paid only Rs.3,70,593/- and failed to pay the balance amount of Rs.3,64,000/- in spite of repeated request and demand, thereby the plaintiff has filed the instant suit against the defendant.
12. Now the question is whether the suit which filed is maintainable before this court and whether this court having the pecuniary jurisdiction to consider the relief which sought by the plaintiff company. Though no dispute either on the jurisdiction point nor maintainability of the suit before this court. However, it is necessary to consider these aspects before considering the materials on record as the plaintiff has filed the instant suit against the defendant for recovery of amount of Rs.3,64,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. Thus this court drawn its attention on Sec.2(i)(c)(xviii) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 which reads like this:
(c) "commercial dispute" means a dispute arising out of-
(i) ordinary transactions of merchants, bankers, financiers and traders such as those relating to mercantile documents, including enforcement and interpretation of such documents;
(ii) export or import of merchandise or services;7 Com.O.S.No.6654/2019
(iii) issues relating to admiralty and maritime law;
(iv) transactions relating to aircraft, aircraft engines, aircraft equipment and helicopters, including sales, leasing and financing of the same;
(v) carriage of goods;
(vi) construction and infrastructure contracts, including tenders;
(vii) agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce;
(viii) franchising agreements;
(ix) distribution and licensing agreements; (x) management and consultancy agreements; (xi) joint venture agreements; (xii) shareholders agreements; (xiii) subscription and investment
agreements pertaining to the services industry including outsourcing services and financial services;
(xiv) mercantile agency and mercantile usage;
(xv) partnership agreements;
(xvi) technology development agreements;
(xvii) intellectual property rights relating to registered and unregistered trademarks, copyright, patent, design, domain names, geographical indications and semiconductor integrated circuits;8 Com.O.S.No.6654/2019
(xviii) agreements for sale of goods or provision of services;
(xix) exploitation of oil and gas reserves or other natural resources including electromagnetic spectrum; (xx) insurance and re-insurance; (xxi) contracts of agency relating to any of the above; and (xxii) such other commercial disputes as may be notified by the Central Government.
The provision under Sec.2(c)(i)(xviii) which referred above is very much clear sale of goods are governed by Sale of Goods Act, they pertain to movable properties, any dispute of sale or agreement to sale of goods of specified value do come within the jurisdiction of Commercial Courts Act. The clause also includes the services and guarantee given for the goods sold. The service or guarantee may be oral or written. So the facts which alleged in the plaint comes under the commercial dispute.
13. Now the question is whether the dispute which stated supra comes under the jurisdiction of commercial court. Thus, this court drawn its attention on Sec.6 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 which reads like this:
Section 6: Jurisdiction of Commercial Court.
6. The Commercial Court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits and applications relating to a commercial dispute of a Specified Value arising out 9 Com.O.S.No.6654/2019 of the entire territory of the State over which it has been vested territorial jurisdiction.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, a commercial dispute shall be considered to arise out of the entire territory of the State over which a Commercial Court has been vested jurisdiction, if the suit or application relating to such commercial dispute has been instituted as per the provisions of sections 16 to 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908).
The above provision is very much clear that the commercial court shall have the jurisdiction to try all suits and applications relating to commercial dispute.
14. Now the question is whether this court having the pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter which is in dispute. Thus, this court drawn its attention on Sec.3 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 which reads like this:
Section 3: Constitution of Commercial Courts.
3. (1) The State Government, may after consultation with the concerned High Court, by notification, constitute such number of Commercial Courts at District level, as it may deem necessary for the purpose of exercising the jurisdiction and powers conferred on those Courts under this Act:
2[Provided that with respect to the High Courts having ordinary original civil jurisdiction, the 10 Com.O.S.No.6654/2019 State Government may, after consultation with the concerned High Court, by notification, constitute Commercial Courts at the District Judge level: Provided further that with respect to a territory over which the High Courts have ordinary original civil jurisdiction, the State Government may, by notification, specify such pecuniary value which shall not be less than three lakh rupees and not more than the pecuniary jurisdiction exercisable by the District Courts, as it may consider necessary.] 3[(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the State Government may, after consultation with the concerned High Court, by notification, specify such pecuniary value which shall not be less than three lakh rupees or such higher value, for whole or part of the State, as it may consider necessary.]
15. Admittedly, the Commercial Court Act was came to be amended on 03.05.2018. By virtue of the amendment and by virtue of the notification, the pecuniary value of the Commercial Courts Act shall not be less than Rs.3,00,000/- or such higher value for own or part of the state. In the instant case, the claim amount which shown in the plaint is of Rs.3,64,000/- and this 11 Com.O.S.No.6654/2019 court having the jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter which is in dispute.
16. Now let me know the materials on record, as the plaintiff in support of oral evidence has produced documents which marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.27. Ex.P.1 is the resolution copy of the plaintiff reflects the P.W.1 has been authorized to prosecute the case against the defendant, Ex.P.2 to P.9 are the tax invoice are clearly reflects that the defendant has placed the order for supply of building materials, accordingly the plaintiff has supplied the building materials to the defendant. Ex.P.10 to P.21 are very much clear the defendant in order to discharge the legally recoverable debt has issued cheques in favour of the plaintiff and the said cheques are dishonoured for want of sufficient fund in the defendant's account. Ex.P.22 to P.25 are clear the plaintiff got issued legal notice to calling upon the defendant for payment of cheque amount and the said notice has been served on the defendant and after service of the notice, the defendant has paid only Rs.3,70,593/- out of Rs.7,34,593/-. So the documents which are marked as Ex.P.1 to P.27 are coupled with the oral evidence of P.W.1.
17. If at all the defendant has not placed orders nor the plaintiff has not supplied the building materials to the defendant 12 Com.O.S.No.6654/2019 and the defendant has not issued cheques to discharge the legally recoverable debt in respect of the building material, the defendant would have chosen to file written statement by denying the contents of the plaint, though the defendant has been appeared through its counsel, but the reasons best known to him, did not chosen to file written statement, that itself is clear the defendant has placed the orders, for which the plaintiff has supplied the building materials and the defendant in order to discharge the legally recoverable debt has issued cheques, but the said cheques are dishonoured for want of sufficient funds in the defendant's account and the plaintiff has proved its case through oral and documentary evidence. Hence, I am of the opinion that the point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
18. POINT NO.2: In view of my answer to point No.1 as stated above, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is decreed with cost. The defendant is hereby directed to pay the decretal amount of Rs.3,64,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of suit till its realization.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 6th day of April, 2021) (P.J. Somashekara) LXXXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (Exclusive dedicated Commercial Court), 13 Com.O.S.No.6654/2019 Bengaluru City ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiff:
P.W.1 Sri. Ram Babu List of witnesses examined on behalf of defendant:
Nil List of documents exhibited on behalf of plaintiff:
Ex.P.1 Resolution copy Ex.P.2 to 9 Tax invoices Ex.P.10 to 21 Cheques Ex.P.22 to 25 Legal notices Ex.P.26 Postal cover Ex.P.27 Notice copy
List of documents exhibited on behalf of defendant:
Nil (P.J. Somashekara) LXXXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (Exclusive dedicated Commercial Court), Bengaluru City 14 Com.O.S.No.6654/2019 Judgment pronounced in the open court, vide separate;
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is decreed with cost.
The defendant is hereby directed to pay the decretal amount of Rs.3,64,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of suit till its realization.
Draw decree accordingly.
(P.J. Somashekara) LXXXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (Exclusive dedicated Commercial Court), Bengaluru City