Delhi District Court
Adj06 (Central) / Delhi vs M/S. Converges Labs Software on 16 November, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJENDER KUMAR SHASTRI
ADJ06 (CENTRAL) / DELHI.
CS NO. : 90/10
M/S. CAIN TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD.
M - 64, SAKET NEW DELHI - 110017.
THOUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
SH. RAKESH SHARMA ....PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
M/S. CONVERGES LABS SOFTWARE
TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.
14th FLOOR, SIGNATURE TOWER B,
SOUTH CITY 1, GURGAON,
HARYANA - 122001. ....DEFENDANT
D.O.I. : 23.11.2007
D.O.J. : 16.11.2011
Present: Sh. Rakesh Makhija Advocate for plaintiff.
None for defendant.
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 3,36,800/ along with interest @ 18% per annum. This suit was filed u/o. 37 CPC but same was treated as an ordinary suit as was requested by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff on 24.07.2010.
2. As per its case, the plaintiff is a private limited company, incorporated under The Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at M64, Saket, New Delhi17. Same is engaged in the consultancy and management particularly in the field of telecommunication and IT for several years. Present suit has been filed by the plaintiff through Sh. Rakesh Sharma, stated to be an officer of plaintiff bank and duly authorized to sign, verify, file and to do all act on behalf of plaintiff.
CS NO. : 90/10 1/4 23. The defendant is a private limited company, incorporated under The Companies Act, 1956, having its office at 14th Floor, Signature Tower B, South City 1, Gurgaon. Same is engaged in providing telecom services, software development, network planning and system integration on a turn key basis wireless operators and system vendors. In June 2005, defendant contacted the plaintiff for assistance in the promotion and marketing of certain new technologies namely the PHS and iBurst systems, which had been developed by a Japanese telecommunication equipment manufacturer called Kyocera Corporation.
4. The plaintiff company agreed to above request of defendant and proceeded providing consultancy services to the latter. The plaintiff devoted its time, efforts, human resource and networking skill to provide services to the defendant. The efforts were made by the plaintiff towards procuring its rightful payment for services rendered to the defendant. After about 2 months, a written contract was entered between the parties, in November 2005. As per it, the contract was to come into effect from September 2nd, 2005. The defendant had to pay the consultancy fee of Rs. 6,50,000/ to the plaintiff. Out of which, a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/ was to be paid in a single installment termed as first payment and a balance of Rs. 4,00,000/ in 10 equal monthly installments of Rs. 40,000/ each which were termed as monthly retainer fee, started 30 days from the date of first payment. The invoices raised by the plaintiff were to be payable within 15 days of receipt by the defendant. It was clearly mentioned in clause 1 of the agreement that plaintiff had already provided services to the defendant.
5. In partial discharge of its liability, the defendant made first payment of CS NO. : 90/10 2/4 3 Rs. 2,50,000/ through a cheque dated 02.11.2005. The defendant also made payment of Bill No. 20 on 02.12.2005 for the first installment on monthly retainer fee, Bill No. 24 pertaining to second installment, Bill No. 27 pertaining to third installment, Bill No. 30 pertaining to fourth installment, through cheques. After paying said amounts, the defendant stopped making further payments and asked for some time to do so. Despite having given sufficient time by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to pay further amounts of remaining installments. The defendant also failed to provide TDS certificate for financial year ending on 31.03.2006 and for financial year ending on 31.03.2007.
6. Feeling aggrieved in this manner, the plaintiff approached this court seeking a decree of Rs. 3,36,800/ along with interest pendentelite and future @ 18% per annum. Costs of the suit are also prayed for.
7. The defendant did not enter an appearance despite service of summons through publication. As mentioned above, though the suit was filed u/o. 37 CPC, same was treated as an ordinary suit for recovery. No written statement was filed by defendant .
8. In order to prove its case, the plaintiff examined Sh. Rakesh Sharma as PW1. The defendant did not lead any evidence.
9. In his affidavit, Sh. Rakesh Sharma (PW1) tautologized the facts of the plaintiff's case. Copy of board of resolution authorizing said Sh. Rakesh Sharma to file present suit is Ext.PW1/A. Agreement entered between the parties is Ext.PW1/B. Details of outstanding amount as on 07.09.2006 is Ext.PW1/C. TDS certificate for year 31.03.2006 and 31.03.2007 is Ext.PW1/D. CS NO. : 90/10 3/4 4
10.Considering the statement of PW1 as discussed above as well as the fact that defendant did not opt to contest the suit of the plaintiff, same is thus decreed for a sum of Rs. 3,36,800/ along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing this suit till realization of decretal amount. Costs of the suit are also awarded in favour of plaintiff.
11.A decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
12. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court (Rajender Kumar Shastri) on 16.11.2011. ADJ06(Central) / Delhi CS NO. : 90/10 4/4 5 CS NO. : 90/10 16.11.2011 Present: Sh. Rakesh Makhija Advocate for plaintiff.
None for defendant.
Vide separate judgment, suit of plaintiff is decreed. File be consigned to record room.
(Rajender Kumar Shastri) ADJ06(Central) / Delhi 16.11.2011 CS NO. : 90/10 5/4