Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

M/S Brawn Laboratories Ltd vs Mr. Rajiv Jain on 23 September, 2011

                                          1

     IN THE COURT OF SH. RAVINDRA Kr. PANDEY: CIVIL JUDGE;
                      CENTRAL-04, DELHI
Suit No. 71/10

M/s Brawn Laboratories Ltd.
4/4B Asaf Ali Road
New Delhi-110002
(Through its Manager, H.R.)                                           ....PLAINTIFF
                                    Versus
Mr. Rajiv Jain, Proprietor
M/s Aman Sweets
70, Bankers Street, Sadar
Meerut Cantt, Meerut, UP                                             ..DEFENDANT

        Date of institution: 27.03.2010
        Date on which order was reserved: 19.09.2011
        Date of pronouncement of the order : 23.09.2011

                 SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs.90,000/-
EX-PARTE JUDGEMENT
1      This is suit for recovery of Rs.90,000/-. As per the case of the plaintiff,
plaintiff is a company under the provision of the Companies Act 1956 and is having
its office at 4/4B, Asaf Ali Road, Old Delhi Stock Building, 2nd Floor New Delhi.
The defendant is manufacturer, seller and service provider regarding sweets and
allied products and carries his business from address mentioned in the plaint. It is
averred on behalf of plaintiff that in the month of October, 2009, the plaintiff was in
look for a supplier of 'GAZZAK' as the same was needed by the plaintiff to deliver
as winter gifts to its Medical Representatives, its customers-domestic &
International, Staff personnel, Doctors and other near and dear ones. In that regard,
the plaintiff conducted/carried out a market survey of the suppliers of 'GAZZAK' in
Delhi and Meerut and defendant after becoming aware of the market survey being
carried out by the plaintiff for the supply for 'GAZZAK', approached the plaintiff at
their aforesaid office and expressed his willingness and intention to supply the
required sweets to the plaintiff, assuring the plaintiff also of the best quality and

Suit No. 71/10                                                            Page 1 of 4
                                            2

timely delivery of the consignment. Plaintiff placed a purchase order dated
03.11.2009

to the defendant for 1050 kgs of 'GAZZAK' @ Rs.90/- kg+ taxes extra to be delivered by the defendant by 15.11.2009. The plaintiff paid in advance by way of Account Payee Cheque for sum of Rs.90,000/- but defendant failed to supply the consignment in November 2009 and after inquiry defendant assured the plaintiff that the consignment would be delivered by the new time limit i.e. November 2009, in all situations and further assured of the quality of the products, but despite that he did not suppled the consignment within the stipulated period and when plaintiff asked to repay for advance money, defendant refused for the same.

2. Plaintiff got issued legal notice on 22.12.2009, which was replied by the defendant. Thereafter plaintiff again issued reminder notice dated 21.01.2010 to the defendant, once again asking him to refund the advance money but despite that defendant has not paid the outstanding amount, hence present suit has been filed.

Defendant was served but despite service when none has appeared on behalf of defendant, defendant was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 20.04.2011.

5. In support of his claim, plaintiff examined Sh. Roop Singh, as PW1, who lead his evidence by way of affidavit in which he supported the averment made in the plaint. PW 1 has got exhibited certain documents like Copy of the Certificate of Incorporation Ex.PW1/1, Copy of Board Resolution and Special Power of Attorney Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/3, Office copy of said purchase order dated 03.11.2009 Ex.PW1/4, Copy of Bank statement regarding clearance/encashment of said cheque Ex. PW1/5,Copy of Legal Notice Ex.PW1/6, Copies of the Registered AD and UPC Ex.PW1/7, Demand cum Legal Notice Ex.PW1/8, Copy of Reminder Notice Ex.PW1/9, and Copies of postal receipt of registered A.D. as well as UPC Ex.PW1/10. After recording the statement, matter was fixed for final arguments.

6. I have heard the Counsel for plaintiff and also perused the material Suit No. 71/10 Page 2 of 4 3 available on record. The suit of plaintiff is within limitation and jurisdiction. Keeping in view, the unrebutted testimony of witness and various documents placed and proved on record, the suit of plaintiff is hereby decreed and decree of Rs.90,000/-along with pendente lite and future interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the realization of decreetal amount is passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant. Cost of suit is also awarded in favour of plaintiff and against defendant. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in the open court                     (Ravindra Kumar Pandey)
today i.e. on 23.09.2011                       Civil Judge/Central/23.09.2011
(Total pages 1 to 4)




Suit No. 71/10                                                       Page 3 of 4
                                              4



Suit No. 71/10
23.09.2011
Present:         None for the plaintiff.
                 Defendant ex parte.

Vide my separate judgment of even date, announced and dictated in the open court, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed and a decree for recovery of Rs.90,000/- along with pendentelite and future interest @ 6 % p.a from the date filing of the suit till the realization of the decreetal amount is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of plaintiff and against defendant.

Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.

(Ravindra Kr. Pandey) Civil Judge/Central-04/23.09.2011 Suit No. 71/10 Page 4 of 4