Delhi District Court
Rakesh Garg vs M/S Saify Interiors on 21 September, 2023
1
In the Court of Dig Vinay Singh, District Judge (Commercial Court)-03
West, Tis Hazari Extension Building, Delhi
In re:
CS(Comm.) 683/23
(Civ DJ/598/2018) Old Number
CNR No. DLWT01-004499-2018
Rakesh Garg
Proprietor
M/s Aggarwal Plywood Co.
84/18, Gali no. 03,
Mundka Udyog Nagar, Mundka,
Delhi - 110041 ...........Plaintiff
Vs.
1. M/s Saify Interiors,
Through Partners,
Plot No. 384,
Behind Bagga Line,
Patparganj Industrial Area,
New Delhi -110092
2. Mr. Javed Saify (Partner Cum Signatory)
M/s Saify Interiors
Plot No. 384,
Behind Bagga Line,
Patparganj Industrial Area
New Delhi -110092
Also at :-
House No. 38, Gali no. 3,
Aram Park, Shashtri Nagar,
New Delhi. .......Defendants
Date of institution: 19.05.2018
Date of arguments: 11.09.2023
Date of judgment: 21.09.2023
Judgment in CS(Comm.) 683/23 (Civ DJ/598/2018) Old Number CNR No. DLWT01-004499-2018 Rakesh Garg Vs. M/s Saify
Interiors & Ors. Dated 21.09.2023; Page 1 of 17
2
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 15,83,085/- (Fifteen Lakh Eighty-Three Thousand Eighty-Five). The dispute is a 'commercial dispute' within the definition of Section 2 (1) (c) of the Commercial Courts Act 2015. Initially this suit was filed before Ld. ADJ Court and this suit was subsequently transferred to the Commercial Court, vide order of the Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge dated 20.03.2023.
2. Brief facts of the case are, that the Plaintiff claims he is proprietor of M/s Aggarwal Plywood Company, a proprietorship concern. Defendant no. 1 (D1 for short) is a partnership firm and Defendant no. 2 (D2 for short) is one of its partner. The total suit amount of Rs. 15,83,085/- comprises of principal sum of Rs. 13,49,221/- (Thirteen Lakh Forty-Nine Thousand Two Hundred Twenty-One) towards the balance due against goods supplied, plus Rs. 2,33,865/- (Two Lakh Thirty-Three Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty-Five) towards interest calculated by the plaintiff @ 16%. Plaintiff avers that he supplied goods to the defendants through 22 invoices between 31.01.2014 to 18.12.2015 on different dates, as per the details of the invoices mentioned in para 4 of the plaint. The defendants made part payments from time to time, leaving an outstanding balance of Rs. 13,49,221/- (Thirteen Lakh Forty-Nine Thousand Two Hundred Twenty-One) as on 11.04.2017. The last payment by the defendant, which was an on account payment for Rs. 5 Lakh, was made on 11.04.2017. The plaintiff also relies upon statement of confirmation of accounts, purportedly issued by the defendants to the plaintiff dated 01.04.2015 & 01.04.2016 for the financial years 2014-15 & 2015-16, respectively.
Judgment in CS(Comm.) 683/23 (Civ DJ/598/2018) Old Number CNR No. DLWT01-004499-2018 Rakesh Garg Vs. M/s Saify Interiors & Ors. Dated 21.09.2023; Page 2 of 17 3 Thereafter, despite repeated requests of the plaintiff, the defendants did not pay the balance amount. Even the legal notice dated 02.01.2018 remained unanswered. Plaintiff has calculated interest on the said due amount @ 16% per annum even though the invoices contain a Clause that 24% interest would be charged on delayed payment. The interest amount of Rs. 2,33,865/- (Two Lakh Thirty-Three Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty-Five) has been calculated by the plaintiff for the period 12.04.2017 to 11.05.2018. Plaintiff also prays pendente lite and future interest @ 16% per annum on the suit amount.
3. The defendants appeared in the suit and filed their common written statement in which the defendants claimed that though the goods were supplied by the plaintiff, but they were of inferior quality as the wood and plywood supplied were spurious. Also, the articles were supplied in such a manner that the defendants were not given reasonable time/opportunity to examine the supplied material and goods, and due to it the defendants suffered a loss of Rs. 46,40,669/- (Forty-Six Lakh Forty Thousand Six Hundred Sixty-Nine) in one of its ongoing projects where the material supplied by the plaintiff was used. Defendants claim that because of the inferior goods supplied by the plaintiff in one of its ongoing project at Double Tree by Hilton of M/s Archer Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., the client of defendants compelled the defendants to issue declaration of full & final certificate in June 2016, which caused loss of above mentioned amount to the defendants. Thereafter, the defendants took up the matter with the plaintiff and the plaintiff and defendants agreed to share the loss in equal proportions of 50%, which comes to Rs. 23,30,335/- (Twenty-Three Lakhs Thirty Thousand Three Hundred Judgment in CS(Comm.) 683/23 (Civ DJ/598/2018) Old Number CNR No. DLWT01-004499-2018 Rakesh Garg Vs. M/s Saify Interiors & Ors. Dated 21.09.2023; Page 3 of 17 4 Thirty-Five). Defendants claim that no amount is due to the plaintiff. Statement of accounts and invoices filed by the plaintiff are alleged to be manipulated. The defendants also claim that from the 22 invoices on which the suit is based by the plaintiff, the suit is time barred qua first 14 invoices between the period 31.01.2014 to 29.08.2014. Defendants also claim that neither there was any mutual, open and running account between the parties, nor there was any reciprocal demand between the parties. Defendants claim that though payments were made by them in tranche, but the said payments were to be adjusted on invoice to invoice basis only. Defendants also claim that they never acknowledged any liability. Defendants admit that they made various payments to the plaintiff through cheque/RTGS/NEFT totaling Rs. 58,99,064/- (Fifty- Eight Lakh Ninety-Nine Thousand Sixty-Four). Defendants also admit that a sum of Rs. 5 Lakhs was paid through cheque on 11.04.2017 to the plaintiff, but it is claimed that the said amount was an advance payment for supply of goods and it was not against pending dues. Defendants also deny having received legal notice from the plaintiff. Territorial jurisdiction of this Court is also challenged.
4. In replication, the plaintiff reiterated the averments of the plaint and denied the claims of the defendants.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, following four issues were framed on 29.05.2019.
"1. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts from this Court as stated by the defendants in the preliminary objections in the written statement? OPD
2. Whether this Court does not have any territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD Judgment in CS(Comm.) 683/23 (Civ DJ/598/2018) Old Number CNR No. DLWT01-004499-2018 Rakesh Garg Vs. M/s Saify Interiors & Ors. Dated 21.09.2023; Page 4 of 17 5
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 15,83,085/- along with interest as prayed for by the plaintiff? OPP
4. Relief."
5.1. In support of its case, plaintiff examined himself as PW1, as the only witness. In his deposition, PW1 reiterated the averments of the plaint. The plaintiff collectively exhibited statements of account maintained by the plaintiff qua the defendants as Ext. PW1/1 for the financial years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17; the 22 invoices are collectively exhibited as Ext. PW1/2; the statement of confirmation of accounts, purportedly issued by the defendants to the plaintiff dated 01.04.2015 & 01.04.2016 for the financial years 2014-15 & 2015-16, respectively, are proved as Ext. PW1/3; Legal Notice is Ext. PW1/4 with its postal receipt as Ext. PW1/5; Certificate U/s 65B of Evidence Act in support of the invoices and the statement of account is Ext. PW1/6.
5.2. Though when those documents were exhibited on 25.09.2019, no objection was raised by the defendants as to mode of proof of those documents, but prior to cross examining PW1, on 22.01.2020 counsel for the defendants did raise objection as to mode of proof of two documents i.e. Ext. PW1/1 and Ext. PW1/3. The objections raised by the counsel for defendants as to mode of proof of those two documents were not decided by the Court on that day and were kept open for arguments till the stage of final arguments. Defendants did not appear and advance arguments at final stage. Those objections are being decided as under.
5.3. Perusal of Ext. PW1/1 reveals that it is a computerised statement of account maintained by the plaintiff qua the defendant, which is processed and generated by a computer. All those pages of that account statement Judgment in CS(Comm.) 683/23 (Civ DJ/598/2018) Old Number CNR No. DLWT01-004499-2018 Rakesh Garg Vs. M/s Saify Interiors & Ors. Dated 21.09.2023; Page 5 of 17 6 are signed by the plaintiff with the stamp of the plaintiff. In support of that account, certificate U/s 65B of Evidence Act is also proved as Ext. PW1/6. The certificate U/s 65B of Evidence Act is signed by the accountant of the plaintiff, namely Krishan Kumar. During cross- examination, PW1 stated that the printout of said certificate was taken by Krishan Kumar, the accountant in the firm. Although Krishan Kumar has not been examined to prove that certificate, but plaintiff being employer of Krishan and aware of his signatures was competent to prove this document. Therefore, there is no legitimate and legally sustainable objection of the defendants as to the mode of proof of Ext. PW1/1.
5.4. Similarly, the objection of the defendants as to Ex.PW1/3, the confirmation of accounts, which according to the plaintiff was issued by none other than the defendants, duly bears signature of someone from the defendant's side with the stamp of D1. There is no serious denial by the defendants about this confirmation of accounts. In his cross-examination DW1 though claimed that he cannot recognise signature of anybody from D1 on these documents, but he claimed that the stamp appearing on the documents appears to be the stamp of D1. DW1 claimed that anybody could prepare those documents Ext. PW1/3. Once DW1 admitted stamp of D1 on this document, nothing else was required from the plaintiff to prove as to who signed this document from the office of D1. After all, how a plaintiff would know who signed and sent the acknowledgment from D1, at the time when business relations were normal and not strained. Thus, the objection of defendants as to mode of proof of this document is also halfhearted and is rejected.
Judgment in CS(Comm.) 683/23 (Civ DJ/598/2018) Old Number CNR No. DLWT01-004499-2018 Rakesh Garg Vs. M/s Saify Interiors & Ors. Dated 21.09.2023; Page 6 of 17 7
6. In defendant's evidence, D2 entered into the witness box. As DW1, he also reiterated the averments of the written statement. The defendants relied upon a bill dated 30.06.2016 Ext. DW1/1 and an e-mail sent to M/s Archer Hospitality Private Ltd. as Ext. DW1/2. It would be pertinent to mention here that DW1 was subjected to cross-examination by the plaintiff in part on 09.06.2022 and thereafter the cross-examination was deferred for want of ITR and the balance sheet. Subsequently, DW1 brought photocopies of ITRs only, which were Marked as Ext. DW1/1 on 18.10.2022. On that day, further cross-examination of DW1 by the plaintiff was deferred as the plaintiff wanted to go through the records submitted on that day before further cross-examining DW1. After 18.10.2022, DW1 appeared on 17.12.2022 and on 15.02.2023, when adjournment was taken by the plaintiff for cross-examination. Thereafter, the matter came to be transferred to the Commercial Court through the Court of Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge, West, Tis Hazari, Delhi, but the defendants did not appear either before Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge, West, Tis Hazari, Delhi or in the Transferee Court. Even Court Notice was issued to the defendants by this Court on 05.06.2023 for 31.07.2023. The Court Notice was duly served upon the defendants, yet nobody appeared for the defendants on 31.07.2023 and accordingly the defendants were proceeded ex-parte. No one appeared for the defendants even thereafter.
7. The matter was heard finally from the side of plaintiff. Defendants chose not to come and advance even the final arguments.
8. Before dealing with the issues, let it be mentioned here that there is no denial of the fact that the defendants received goods from the plaintiff.
Judgment in CS(Comm.) 683/23 (Civ DJ/598/2018) Old Number CNR No. DLWT01-004499-2018 Rakesh Garg Vs. M/s Saify Interiors & Ors. Dated 21.09.2023; Page 7 of 17 8 The claim of the defendants is that the goods supplied by the plaintiff were of sub-standard quality and the defendants were not given adequate time at the time of supply of material to inspect the goods and inform the plaintiff or reject the goods. The defendants admitted making part payments including the payment of Rs. 5 Lakh made on 11.04.2017.
8.1. Perusal of the written statement filed by the defendants would reveal that there is a vague denial to the 22 invoices in question. The defendants at one place claimed that the statement of account as well as the invoices filed by the plaintiff are manipulated. The plaintiff gave details of all the 22 invoices in para no. 4 of the plaint. In the corresponding para no. 4 of the WS, the defendants claimed that it was incorrect that the defendants purchased goods as per invoices mentioned in para no. 4 of the plaint. In this para no. 4 of the WS, the defendants did not specifically aver that the 22 invoices detailed by the plaintiff in para 4 of the plaint were forged or fabricated or that the defendants did not receive goods against any of those invoices or few of those invoices. In this para no. 4 of the WS the defendants also averred that there was no mutual open and current account or reciprocal demands between the parties and in fact the payments were made by the defendant, though in tranche, but the payments were to be adjusted on invoice to invoice basis. The defendants specified 14 out of 22 invoices in his WS in para no. 4 and claimed that those invoices were barred by limitation. In this very para, the defendants admitted that the plaintiff had supplied goods from time to time, but claimed that the goods were usually supplied in the evening at the go- down of the defendants and that the quality of the goods supplied were inferior. Therefore, in reply to para no. 4 in the plaint, the defendants did Judgment in CS(Comm.) 683/23 (Civ DJ/598/2018) Old Number CNR No. DLWT01-004499-2018 Rakesh Garg Vs. M/s Saify Interiors & Ors. Dated 21.09.2023; Page 8 of 17 9 not specifically and categorically state that they did not receive goods under those 22 invoices or any of them and a vague reply has been given.
8.2. During evidence of the plaintiff, the defendants did not raise any objection as to the mode of proof of invoices Ext. PW1/2, though the defendants had raised objection as to mode of proof of other two documents including Ext. PW1/3, which is confirmation of account purportedly issued by the defendant. In the entire cross-examination of the plaintiff, there is no suggestion given by the defendants that the invoices Ext. PW1/2 were forged or incorrect. Even though the defendants suggested to PW1 that the confirmation of account Ext. PW1/3 was manufactured, but there is no suggestion to that effect qua the invoices Ext. PW1/2. Also, in the cross-examination of PW1, there is no suggestion that goods against invoices Ext. PW1/2 were not received by the defendant. Rather, perusal of the WS of the defendants and the affidavit of DW1 in evidence reveal that the stand of the defendants was that the goods were supplied by the plaintiff to the defendants from time to time. However, those goods were of sub-standard quality and also the defendants were not given adequate time for inspection about the quality of the goods.
8.3. These facts coupled with the admission of DW1 in his cross-examination to the effect that DW1 cannot say whether the goods have been purchased by the defendants as per details mentioned in para 4 of the plaint, proves that there is no denial of the defendants that the goods were received. The answer of DW1 in this regard in his cross- examination by the plaintiff is as follows, Judgment in CS(Comm.) 683/23 (Civ DJ/598/2018) Old Number CNR No. DLWT01-004499-2018 Rakesh Garg Vs. M/s Saify Interiors & Ors. Dated 21.09.2023; Page 9 of 17 10 "that I do not remember since when we have been purchasing goods from the plaintiff. I have gone through the pleadings of the suit. I cannot say whether the goods have been purchased by us as per details mentioned in para 4 of the plaint."
8.4. The above mentioned answer by the defendants has to be taken as admission of receipt of goods for the reason that when a defendant enters witness box for cross-examination, he cannot claim ignorance as to whether goods were received or not. If a defendant even at the stage of his cross-examination claims ignorance, that answer has to be taken against the defendant. If a defendant does not check his records before entering the witness box, at what stage would a defendant give definite reply to such a query. This is particularly important as admittedly the defendants did not place on record their sales tax returns even despite being questioned about it in cross-examination of DW1 and even despite his answer that he can produce sales tax record for the period 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2018. Also the defendants did not prove their ITR/balance sheet despite being asked to do so and DW1 brought only photocopies of the ITR which were not exhibited and which were marked only. The defendants even shied away from tendering DW1 for complete cross- examination by the plaintiff.
9. Issue wise findings are as follows: -
10. Issue no. 1 "Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts from this Court as stated by the defendants in the preliminary objections in the written statement? OPD"
10.1. The onus to prove this issue was on the defendants. The defendants claimed that the plaintiff concealed material facts, which as per defendants are that the plaintiff supplied inferior goods in such a manner Judgment in CS(Comm.) 683/23 (Civ DJ/598/2018) Old Number CNR No. DLWT01-004499-2018 Rakesh Garg Vs. M/s Saify Interiors & Ors. Dated 21.09.2023; Page 10 of 17 11 which did not give any opportunity/reasonable time to the defendant to examine the goods and to point out the shortcomings, because of which the defendant suffered loss and also the plaintiff and the defendants entered into some negotiation and they agreed to share the loss caused to the defendants. The plaintiff throughout denied any such negotiation between the parties. Admittedly, there is no written agreement to that effect or any written communication between the parties acknowledging any such agreement or negotiation. In the cross-examination, DW1 admitted that no evidence has been placed on record to show that any such negotiation took place between the plaintiff and the defendants. DW1 could not even recollect as to when this negotiation took place, which according to him took place in his office. Thus, the defendants failed to prove any such negotiation took place between the parties and thus there cannot be any such concealment of material fact by the plaintiff as the case of the plaintiff throughout was that no such negotiation occurred. So far as the claim of the defendants that inferior goods were supplied by the plaintiff and the defendants were not given the reasonable opportunity to inspect the goods or that the defendants suffered loss because of it is concerned, those two pleas of the defendants are being discussed hereinafter in detail under Issue no. 3 and for the reasons which follows even those facts are not proved by the defendants. Therefore, the defendants failed to prove any such material concealment of facts by the plaintiff. Issue no.1 is accordingly decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff.
11. Issue no. 2 "Whether this Court does not have any territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD"
Judgment in CS(Comm.) 683/23 (Civ DJ/598/2018) Old Number CNR No. DLWT01-004499-2018 Rakesh Garg Vs. M/s Saify Interiors & Ors. Dated 21.09.2023; Page 11 of 17 12 11.1. Even onus to prove issue no. 2 was on the defendants. The claim of the defendants was that the goods were supplied not within territorial jurisdiction of this Court, but at different sites of the defendants. On the other hand, the claim of the plaintiff was that part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court as the office/go down of the plaintiff is located within the jurisdiction of this Court from where supply was made. Plaintiff also claimed that the payments were made to the plaintiff by the defendants at his office and in the bank located within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The invoices collectively Ext. PW1/2 reads that all disputes are subject to Delhi jurisdiction only. These invoices do not specify any particular District within Delhi conferring territorial jurisdiction to any particular Court in Delhi. The office/go- down of the plaintiff is within the jurisdiction of this Court.
11.2. In the cross-examination, DW1 deposed that he has no knowledge as to where the go-down of the plaintiff is and he cannot say that the plaintiff supplied the goods from its go-down. DW1 also deposed that he was unaware whether the plaintiff's bank account was in Axis Bank in Mundka or that in the said account the defendants made part payment to the plaintiff.
11.3. Thus, the defendants did not lead any evidence to prove that any other Court has exclusive territorial jurisdiction or that goods were not supplied by the plaintiff from Mundka or that part payment was not received in the bank account of the plaintiff at Mundka. The said place falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
11.4. U/s 20(c) of CPC, a suit for recovery can be filed where part of cause of action arises. Since part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of Judgment in CS(Comm.) 683/23 (Civ DJ/598/2018) Old Number CNR No. DLWT01-004499-2018 Rakesh Garg Vs. M/s Saify Interiors & Ors. Dated 21.09.2023; Page 12 of 17 13 this court, the agreement between the parties to confer exclusive jurisdiction to Delhi courts is valid.
11.5. Thus, even this issue no. 2 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
12. Issue no. 3 "Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 15,83,085/- along with interest as prayed for by the plaintiff? OPP"
12.1. Onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff. Plaintiff proved the statement of account maintained by the plaintiff qua the defendants as Ext. PW1/1; the 22 invoices Ext. PW1/2 and; the statement of confirmation of account issued by none other than the defendants as Ext. DW1/3.
12.2. As mentioned above, the defence of the defendants was primarily that the goods supplied by the plaintiff were of sub-standard quality and the defendants were not given adequate opportunity to inspect the goods before the goods were accepted or rejected. But then, admittedly there is no written communication proved by the defendants which might have been reported to the plaintiff at any stage pointing out any such quality issue in the goods supplied by the plaintiff. Even if it is accepted that the plaintiff did not give adequate & reasonable opportunity to the defendants to inspect the goods supplied late in the evening, the defendants were always free to inspect the same on the next day or within few days and intimate the plaintiff any defects or shortcomings in the goods. But it wasn't done.
Judgment in CS(Comm.) 683/23 (Civ DJ/598/2018) Old Number CNR No. DLWT01-004499-2018 Rakesh Garg Vs. M/s Saify Interiors & Ors. Dated 21.09.2023; Page 13 of 17 14 12.3. As per Section 41 of the Sale of Goods Act, the defendants had a right to inspect the goods on delivery and report defects within a reasonable time of delivery. If not rejected within reasonable time, mandate of Section 42 stipulates that the defendant would be deemed to have accepted the goods.
12.4. Defendants also failed to prove the fact that the defendants suffered any loss as claimed by the defendants in the project of M/s Archer Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. In his evidence, DW1 though exhibited printout of an e-mail as Ext. DW1/2, but admittedly no certificate U/s 65B of the Evidence Act was proved in support of this document. Therefore, this document is not proved in accordance with law and it has to be de-exhibited and cannot be considered in evidence. Defendants also exhibited a communication dated 30.06.2016 sent by the defendants to M/s Archer Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., wherein the defendants agreed to receive full & final payment of Rs. 6,62,54,445/- (Six Crore Sixty-Two Lakh Fifty-Four Thousand Four Hundred Forty-Five). But then, even if this document is taken at its face value, it nowhere points out that the goods supplied by the plaintiff to the defendants were of sub-standard quality in any manner.
12.5. In his cross-examination, DW1 admitted that the defendants used to purchase goods from the plaintiff. He claimed ignorance as to the period since when the goods were being purchased. When the plaintiff specifically questioned that the goods were supplied to the defendants through the invoices as mentioned in para 4 of the plaint, the witness claimed ignorance.
12.6. Though, the defendants in its cross-examination claimed that they used to make payment to plaintiff on bill to bill basis, but perusal of the Judgment in CS(Comm.) 683/23 (Civ DJ/598/2018) Old Number CNR No. DLWT01-004499-2018 Rakesh Garg Vs. M/s Saify Interiors & Ors. Dated 21.09.2023; Page 14 of 17 15 statement of account Ext. PW1/1 would reveal that mostly the payments made by the defendants to the plaintiff were round figure payments such as 1.5 Lakh, 2 Lakh, 5 Lakh, 10 Lakh, and very few payments made by the defendants to the plaintiff are other than round figure payments. Perusal of invoices Ext. PW1/2, the corresponding amounts of which are duly reflected under the heading 'debit' in the statement of account Ext. PW1/1, reveals that mostly the due amount of the goods are not in round figures. Thus, the payment made by the defendants to the plaintiff apparently were not invoice to invoice payment, but were on account payments. The payments have been made through various modes such as RTGS/cheques etc. Though, the plaintiff in its cross-examination admitted that there was no running, mutual or open account between the parties, yet the suit of the plaintiff has to be within limitation for the following reasons.
12.7. Plaintiff supplied goods to the defendants through 22 invoices between 31.01.2014 to 18.12.2015 on different dates. On various dates, different payments were made by the defendant. The last payment was made on 11.04.2017, which would extend the limitation for a period of three years. The suit filed by the plaintiff on 18.05.2018 is therefore within limitation. Therefore, even if one takes out of consideration the statement of confirmation account Ext. PW1/3, still the suit would be within limitation. It may also be mentioned here that though the defendant claim that this last payment was an advance payment, but the defendants failed to prove that fact too.
12.8. The defendants did not place on record their statement of account to prove that the payments made by the defendants to the plaintiff were on Judgment in CS(Comm.) 683/23 (Civ DJ/598/2018) Old Number CNR No. DLWT01-004499-2018 Rakesh Garg Vs. M/s Saify Interiors & Ors. Dated 21.09.2023; Page 15 of 17 16 invoice to invoice basis or that entire payment was made. As mentioned above, the defendants also failed to prove that there was any understanding or agreement between plaintiff and the defendants to share any such loss. Even otherwise, no loss has been proved by the defendant. Defendants claimed that no order book used to be maintained and only oral orders used to be placed upon the plaintiff.
12.9. Accordingly, even this issue no. 2 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The plaintiff succeeds in proving that the defendants are liable to pay principal sum of Rs. 13,49,221/- (Thirteen Lakh Forty-Nine Thousand Two Hundred Twenty-One) towards the price of the goods supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant.
12.10. The question however is as to the rate of interest. On the above mentioned amount, plaintiff has added Rs. 2,33,865/- as interest for the period 12.04.2017 to 11.05.2018 @ 16% per annum. The invoices Ext. PW1/2 contains a clause that interest @ 24% per annum shall be charged, if the bill is not paid in time. Therefore, the interest claimed for pre suit period is even lessor than the agreed rate of interest.
12.11. The suit of the plaintiff is accordingly entitled to be decreed for a total sum of Rs. 15,83,085/- (Fifteen Lakh Eighty-Three Thousand Eighty- Five).
12.12. The question however is as to for how much rate of interest plaintiff is entitled to for pendente lite and future period. The plaintiff has prayed interest @ 16%.
12.13. In the case of Cimmco Limited Versus Pramod Krishna Agrawal 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7289, it is held as follows;
Judgment in CS(Comm.) 683/23 (Civ DJ/598/2018) Old Number CNR No. DLWT01-004499-2018 Rakesh Garg Vs. M/s Saify Interiors & Ors. Dated 21.09.2023; Page 16 of 17 17 "3..........Hon'ble Supreme Court has now mandated that lower rates of interest be granted and therefore the pre-suit and also the pendente lite and future interest is liable to be reduced by this Court. Reliance is placed upon the judgments in the cases of Rajendra Construction Co. v. Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority, (2005) 6 SCC 678, McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd., (2006) 11 SCC 181, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Indag Rubber Ltd., (2006) 7 SCC 700, Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. G. Harischandra, (2007) 2 SCC 720 & State of Rajasthan v. Ferro Concrete Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 3 Arb. LR 140 (SC)."
12.14. In the given facts & circumstances, interest of justice would be met if the plaintiff is awarded simple interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of suit till realization on the above mentioned total decretal amount of Rs. 15,83,085/- (Fifteen Lakh Eighty-Three Thousand Eighty-Five).
Relief
13. Suit is accordingly decreed for Rs. 15,83,085/- (Fifteen Lakh Eighty-
Three Thousand Eighty-Five) with simple interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of suit till realisation. Plaintiff shall also be entitled to cost of the suit.
14. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Copy of this judgment be also sent to both the sides through electronic modes in terms of Order XX Rule 1(1) CPC. File be consigned to the record room.
Digitally
Announced in the open Court DIG signed by DIG
VINAY SINGH
on 21st day of September, 2023. VINAY Date:
2023.09.21
SINGH 14:34:06
+0530
Dig Vinay Singh
District Judge (Commercial)-03
West, Tis Hazari, Delhi (r)
Judgment in CS(Comm.) 683/23 (Civ DJ/598/2018) Old Number CNR No. DLWT01-004499-2018 Rakesh Garg Vs. M/s Saify Interiors & Ors. Dated 21.09.2023; Page 17 of 17