Delhi District Court
Having Its Corporate Office At vs Gyan Cirkitronics Pvt. Ltd on 23 September, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUDHIR KUMAR SIROHI:
ACJ/CCJ/ARC(SOUTH EAST DISTRICT),
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
New CS No. 1740/18
Cavalier Logistics Private Limited
A Company registered under the Companies Act, 2013
Having its Corporate office at:
303305, III rd floor, LSC
Sharda ChambersIV, Kalkaji New Delhi19 ....Plaintiff
Versus
Gyan Cirkitronics Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Managing Director
A Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956
Having its Registered office at:
Plot no. 6B, Malviya Nagar, Aishbagh
Lucknow, UP226018 ....Defendant
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 2,32,355/
ALONGWITH FUTUR AND PENDENTELITE INTEREST
Date of filing of suit : 03.12.2018
final arguments heard : 31.08.2019
Date of Judgment : 23.09.2019
EXPARTE JUDGMENT
1.Brief facts as discernible from plaint are that the defendant was in need of the services for freight forwarding of its import consignments thereafter approached the plaintiff company at its corporate office situated at Delhi. It was agreed between the plaintiff company and defendant that plaintiff company would act as a freight forwarding agent and would provide the services of freight forwarding to the defendant as per the instructions of the defendant.
CS No.1740/18 Cavalier Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gyan Cirkitronics Pvt. Ltd. 1 of 6
2. It is averred by plaintiff that the first transaction which took between the plaintiff and the defendant was when the defendant availed the services of the plaintiff company of one of its import consignment to which the plaintiff company rendered the desired services and arranged the freight forwarding as per instructions of the defendant and raised an invoice bearing no. 2145 IA1718. The defendant as per the agreed terms made the payment in lieu of the said services rendered by the plaintiff company. Thereafter defendant again approached the plaintiff company and instructed to get one shipment/consignment containing spindles routine Manchin Chiller'. The defendant at the time of booking the said consignment had intimated to the plaintiff company that the wight of the shipment/consignment which was to be forwarded from Shenzhen, China to Delhi, India was 1980 KG's but when the shipment reached a the gate of custom department for weight measurement it came out to be 3300 kgs to which the plaintiff company immediately communicated the same to the defendant company. The defendant company in pursuance to hold back the lawful dues of the plaintiff company first started framing allegations that the plaintiff company was providing wrong information as the weight of the shipment in question to which the plaintiff company supplied him all the relevant documents to substantiate that the shipments weight is 3300 kgs. Thereafter, the defendant company after being satisfied instructed the plaintiff company to arrange freight forwarding of the said consignment and pay the freight forwarding of the said consignment and pay the requisite freight/charges/expenses to the concerned airline/government authorities on behalf of the defendant.
3. It is also averred by the plaintiff that the plaintiff company and the defendant that for such transaction, the plaintiff company should raise its invoice upon the defendant claiming thereby payment of agreed freight and other charges and that the payment thereof shall be made by the defendant company within the agreed credit period of 60 days failing which interest @ 2.5% per month shall be payable by the defendant company on all overdue CS No.1740/18 Cavalier Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gyan Cirkitronics Pvt. Ltd. 2 of 6 payments.
4. It is also averred by plaintiff that plaintiff company hereafter providing the service of freight forwarding to the defendant to its complete satisfaction raised an invoice bearing no. 2202IA1718 dated 31.01.2018 for Rs. 500228/ in lieu of importing one shipment/consignment. The shipment was delivered to the defendant and defendant company did not have any service issue. The consignment was forwarded as per institution/guidelines of Sh. Praveen Chandra and Smt. Prerna Chandra the directors of the defendant company and the plaintiff company fulfilled all its obligation.
5. It is also averred by the plaintiff that the invoice was duly delivered to the defendant with all supporting documents and defendant is liable to pay the invoice amount but failed to pay the same to which the plaintiff company started sending requests/reminder to the defendant company. Plaintiff company started creating an issue as to the weight of the shipment and denied that the weight of the shipment is 3300 Kgs despite being fully aware that the weight mentioned in the airway bill is the conclusive proof as to the weight of the shipment in question. It is also averred by the plaintiff that the defendant alleged that the plaintiffs counterpart at china did not weight the machine properly and the actual weight is not 3300 Kgs. Plaintiff company incurred expenses in re measurement and paid all the expenses for re weighment and raised an invoice bearing no. 0230IA1819 upon the defendant and delivered the invoice to the defendant same to the defendant alongwith all supporting documents for making payment.
6. It is also averred by the plaintiff that the debit balance pending in the name of M/s Gyan Cirkitronics Pvt. Ltd. As on 25.08.2018 was 532828/ due to nonpayment of full value of the invoices raised upon the defendant. Plaintiff company constantly reminded the defendant of its obligation to pay the aforesaid amount and demanded he same from the defendant but CS No.1740/18 Cavalier Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gyan Cirkitronics Pvt. Ltd. 3 of 6 defendant telephonically denied to pay a single penny against the services availed. Thereafter, plaintiff company issued legal notice dated 04.09.2018 asking the defendant company to pay due amount and the said notice was sent through registered post on 04.09.2018 and courier also. Thereafter, defendant made part payment of Rs. 3,00,473/ against the said invoices. Plaintiff company requested the defendant to make the balance payment. It is also averred by the plaintiff that there is debit balance of Rs. 232355/ with future and pendente lite interest @ 18 % per annum.
7. Summons was issued to the defendant vide order dated 03.12.2018 and summons to the defendant were served, thereupon the counsel appeared on behalf of defendant and filed his vakalatnama on 18.02.2019 but after that no one appeared on behalf of defendant, therefore, the defendant was proceeded exparte vide order dated 09.05.2019.
Exparte Evidence
8. Plaintiff in his defence has examined Mr. Bharat Juyal as PW1 who filed his affidavit Ex. PW1/A and filed evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the following documents:
1. The certificate of incorporation is exhibited as mark 'A' (through written as PW1/A in affidavit)
2. The true copy of board resolution dated 24.09.2018 is Ex.PW 1/1.
3. The office copy of invoice No. 2202IA1819 dated 09.05.2018 is Ex.PW1/2
4. The supporting airway bills are Ex.PW1/3 (colly).
5. The office copy of Invoice bearing No. 0230IA1819 dated 09.05.2018 is Ex.PW1/4.
6. The email communications exchanged with the defendant are Ex.PW1/5 (Colly).
7. The office copy of general ledger maintained in the name of the CS No.1740/18 Cavalier Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gyan Cirkitronics Pvt. Ltd. 4 of 6 defendant is Ex.PW1/6.
8. The miscellaneous documents depicting the actual weight of the consignment are Ex.PW1/7 (Colly) at this stage it has been submitted on behalf of plaintiff the translation of the said document is not filed therefore the plaintiff is not relying on the said document.
9. The office copy of legal notice dated 04.09.2018 along with postal receipts are Ex.PW1/8 to Ex.PW1/10.
10. The web delivery reports as downloaded from the website of the Indian Postal Dept. and the courier company are Ex.PW1/11 and Ex.PW1/12.
11. The original Certificate U/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is Ex.PW1/13.
9. I had heard Ld. counsel for the plaintiff and considered the records.
Discussion:
10. The court is having jurisdiction as the cause of action has been arisen within jurisdiction of the court. The suit is within limitation period as the date of last invoice is 09.05.2018 (Ex.PW1/4). Testimony of the PW1 remained unchallenged during the exparte evidence and testimony of PW1 has been supported by the invoices Ex.PW1/1, Ex.PW1/2 and airway bills Ex.PW1/3 (colly). Plaintiff has also proved its ledger account statement Ex.PW1/6 and as per same, the amount of Rs. 2,32,355/ is due upon the defendant. From the abovesaid documents it has been proved by the plaintiff that the goods of defendant were forwarded as per abovesaid invoices but the carrier charges has not been paid by the defendant. Plaintiff also sent legal notice to the defendant Ex.PW1/8. Plaintiff is claiming 18% per annum interest. In the invoices Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/4, the rate of interest @ 2.5% per month has been mentioned which comes to 18% per annum, therefore this shows that the parties are agreed for the rate of interest @ 18% per annum.
CS No.1740/18 Cavalier Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gyan Cirkitronics Pvt. Ltd. 5 of 6 Relief
11. In view of the aforesaid findings, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for the sum of Rs. 2,32,355/ against the defendant with pendente lite @ 18 % per annum and future interest @ 6% per annum (as Section 34 of the CPC). Plaintiff is also entitled to the cost of proceedings. After payment of deficient court fees, if any, decreesheet be prepared by the Reader. File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance as per law.
Announced in open Court (SUDHIR KUMAR SIROHI)
today on 23.09.2019 Administrative Civil Judge
SE/Saket Courts/Delhi
Digitally signed
by SUDHIR
SUDHIR KUMAR
SIROHI
KUMAR Date:
SIROHI 2019.09.24
16:17:34
+0530
CS No.1740/18 Cavalier Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gyan Cirkitronics Pvt. Ltd. 6 of 6