Delhi District Court
Kapil Chawla Prop vs A.N. Traders Pvt. Ltd. (Antpl) on 26 July, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHIKA SINGLA,
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-03, NORTH-WEST DISTT.,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CS No. : 192/18
In the matter of:
Kapil Chawla Prop.
of M/s SNS Fresh
At: KP-358, 2nd Floor, Maurya Enclave,
Pitampura, Delhi.
........ Plaintiff
VERSUS
1.A.N. Traders Pvt. Ltd. (ANTPL) through its Directors
2. Sh. Ashok Sharma
3. Sh. Rajan Sharma Having its office at:
KFC Corporate Office, Plot no. 167, Sec-4, IMT Manesar, Gurgaon, Haryana
4. M/s Sapphire Foods Indian Pvt. Ltd.
702, Prism Tower, A-Wing, Mindspace Link Road, Goregaon (West), Mumbai-400061.
........ Defendants
CS No. 192/18 Kapil Chawla Vs. A.N. Traders Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 8 of 8
Date of institution : 27.02.2018
Date on which judgment was reserved : 14.07.2022
Date of pronouncement of the judgment : 26.07.2022
EXPARTE JUDGMENT
Suit for recovery for Rs. 34,68,541/- along with pendente lite and future interest @ 18 % p.a.
1) By this judgment, I shall decide the present suit for recovery filed by the plaintiff.
2) In brief, the case of the plaintiff as per plaint is that the plaintiff firm is engaged in the business of supply of fresh vegetables to various outlets over the years and Yum brand has approached the plaintiff firm, who in turn introduced the plaintiff to the defendant no. 1 as they happened to be franchisee of Yum brand, running various stores in the name and style of Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) and the royalty on their turnover was being paid by the defendant no. 1. The plaintiff supplied vegetables, to the defendant no. 1 for its chain running at different places in the name and style as KFC and the bills and invoices were duly received by the plaintiff. The defendant no. 1 was running various KFC stores under Yum Indian and the plaintiff supplied veggies as per the need and requirement, meeting the international norms to the various stores of KFC to the defendant no. 1 through bills/ invoices. From time to time, Yum India intervened for CS No. 192/18 Kapil Chawla Vs. A.N. Traders Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 8 of 8 day to day operational issues for various KFC stores as an interface between the defendant no. 1 and the plaintiff, so that Yum Brand was not affected in terms of business volumes and international quality standards. Since the defendant no. 1 faltered on making payment for its supplies to KFC stores, Yum India intervened and as a result, cheques were signed by Yum India at the point when yum representative was induced as authorized signatory with the bank. The defendant no. 1 again could not sustain KFC stores operations and failed to perform. As per the accounts maintained by the plaintiff in usual course of business, a sum of Rs. 34,68,541/- was outstanding against the defendant no. 1 and these accounts are duly acknowledged and signed towards confirmation of the above said balance in the statement of account. The same set of duly acknowledged statement of account has been mailed on 09.10.2015 to the defendant no. 1. The interest comes to Rs. 16,11,418/- from 31.10.2014 to 30.06.2017 and defendant no. 2 made the payment of Rs. 15 lacs on behalf of the defendant no. 1 to the plaintiff, which is offset against the interest liability and balance amount of Rs. 34,68,541/- is still outstanding against the defendant no. 1. The plaintiff demanded the overdue amount with interest but the defendant no. 1 failed to pay the said amount in spite of repeated requests.
3) On 30.06.2017, the plaintiff sent a legal demand notice to the defendant which was duly received by the defendants, but to no effect. The defendant no. 2 has sent a reply on 10.08.2017. Hence, CS No. 192/18 Kapil Chawla Vs. A.N. Traders Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 8 of 8 the present suit was filed.
4) Summons of the suit were not served upon the defendants. Nor any WS was filed. The defendants were proceeded against ex- parte on 17.11.2021 and present matter was adjourned for plaintiff evidence.
5) In its evidence, the plaintiff examined one witness i.e. himself as PW-1 and he tendered his evidence by way of affidavit, which is exhibited as Ex.PW1/A. He relied upon the following documents in his evidence:-
a) The copy of invoices/ bills issued to the defendant no. 1 is Ex.
PW1/1 (colly).
b) The copy of statement of account is Ex. PW1/2 (colly).
c) Copy of legal notice with acknowledgement receipt and copy of postal receipt is Ex. PW-1/3 and PW1/4 respectively.
d) Reply of notice to the defendant no. 2 is Ex. PW1/5.
e) Certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is Ex. PW1/6.
In view of separate statement made on behalf of the plaintiff, PE was closed vide order dated 14.07.2022.
CS No. 192/18 Kapil Chawla Vs. A.N. Traders Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 8 of 8
6) I have already heard exparte arguments from Sh. Anil Chabbra, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and have perused the entire material available on record carefully.
7) As mentioned above, the plaintiff firm has alleged that it is engaged in the business of supply of fresh vegetables to various outlets over the years and Yum brand has approached the plaintiff firm, who in turn introduced the plaintiff to the defendant no. 1 as they happened to be franchisee of Yum brand, running various stores in the name and style of Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) and the royalty on their turnover was being paid by the defendant no. 1. The plaintiff supplied vegetables, to the defendant no. 1 for its chain running at different places in the name and style as KFC and the bills and invoices were duly received by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has proved the invoices raised by it in the favour of the defendant company in the year 2012-14. The invoices are Ex. PW1/1 (colly) (running into 185 pages). Despite service, the defendants did not come forward to dispute these bills. Hence, in view of the unrebutted testimony of the plaintiff and the above mentioned documents, it is proved that the above mentioned goods were sold and supplied by the plaintiff to the defendants.
8) The plaintiff also proved the account statement of the defendant company maintained by the plaintiff in its usual course of business w.e.f. 01.04.2009 till 16.08.2015 which is Ex. PW1/2 (colly) CS No. 192/18 Kapil Chawla Vs. A.N. Traders Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 8 of 8 (running into 37 pages). The said statement is stamped by the defendant firm and signed also in the date 30.09.2015. As per the said ledger account, part payment towards the above mentioned goods was made by the defendant and the same has been reflected in the ledger. Again, the defendant did not challenge the veracity of this document. The defendant did not come forward with any such claim that the payment was made by them or the goods were not received by them. Hence, on the basis of the above mentioned documents, it is proved that the defendants had not made the payment towards the goods purchased by them to the tune of Rs. 33,57,123/-.
9) The plaintiff has claimed interest of Rs. 16,11,418/- from 31.10.2014 to 30.06.2017. Again the defendant has not challenged the rate of interest as calculated by the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff has claimed the interest @ 18% per annum which has been mentioned to be the chargeable rate of interest. However, there is nothing on record to suggest that this was the agreed rate of interest between the parties. The bills are silent qua the same. Hence, the court is not inclined to grant such a high rate of interest to the plaintiff in the absence of a specific contract towards the same. However, the plaintiff is granted interest @ 6 % p.a.
10) Regarding limitation, it may be argued that the first bills which were raised by the plaintiff are pertaining to the year 2012 and the suit has been filed only on 27.02.2018. However, from the ledger CS No. 192/18 Kapil Chawla Vs. A.N. Traders Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 8 of 8 account Ex. PW1/2, it is clear that the parties were in a continuous business relation with each other and part payments were being made by the defendant to the plaintiff from time to time. As per the statement, the last payment was made by the defendant on 19.09.2014 and the last sale which was made by the plaintiff was on 31.10.2014. Hence, the cause of action lastly arose in the favour of the plaintiff on 31.10.2014. The period of limitation for filing of a suit for recovery is 03 years, unless the same is extended, as per the law of Limitation.
11) In the present matter, the plaintiff has sought the extension of the limitation period on the basis of certain written acknowledgements made by the defendant in the favour of the plaintiff. Certain e-mails in this regard have been placed on record. However, they have not been proved by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has only proved the defendant's reply to the legal notice sent by the plaintiff as Ex. PW1/5. However, perusal of that reply shows that the defendant has specifically denied the liability to pay a sum of Rs. 34,68,541/-. Hence, there is no acknowledgement made by the defendant towards his liability which could extend the period of limitation. Hence, though the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of the amount, his claim is barred by limitation.
12) In view of the above discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
CS No. 192/18 Kapil Chawla Vs. A.N. Traders Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 8 of 8
13) File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court
on 26th July of 2022
(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
Addl. Distt. Judge-03, North-West Distt.,
Rohini Courts, Delhi.
This judgment contains 8 pages and each
page is checked and signed by me.
CS No. 192/18 Kapil Chawla Vs. A.N. Traders Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 8 of 8