Delhi District Court
Mr. V.P. Sharma vs M/S Ratna Offsets Ltd on 24 May, 2022
1
IN THE COURT OF MS.VEENA RANI :ADJ-06, WEST
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Suit No:610563/2016 ( New) & Old Case No:86/2015
CNR No:DLWTO1-002007-2015
Mr. V.P. Sharma
Proprietor of M/s Expoim International,
F-109, F.F. Vikas Puri,
New Delhi-110018 .....Plaintiff
Versus
M/s Ratna Offsets Ltd.
Through (Director), Mr. Vipul Pandhya,
B-21/42A, Kamchha,,Varanasi, U.P.-221010
Also At: Ratna Offset Ltd.
D-1, Chinnabaug Industrial Estate,
Dhudeswar Road, Ahmedabad
(Gujarat)-38004 .....Defendants
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.4,57,200/-
Date of Institution of suit :06-06-2015
Date reserved for Judgment :29-04-2022
Date of Judgment :24-05-2022
JUDGMENT
1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit prayed for a decree for Suit No:610563/2016, Mr. V.P. Sharma Vs. M/s Ratna Offsets Ltd.
2the recovery of Rs.4,57,200/- alongwith interest @24% pa. Pendentelite and also future interest in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant along with the costs of the suit. Briefly the facts of the case, as stated in the plaint by the plaintiff is as under:-
2. FACTS AS PER PLAINT The case of the plaintiff, as stated in the plaint is that plaintiff is engaged in the professional guidance and of providing various kind of services/Liasoning work etc. with the various government departments and is a professional in providing liasoning in claims relating to recovery of capital subsidy from Government departments under the concerned Ministry under various projects/schemes including CLCSS on commission basis. The defendant approached the plaintiff and showed his interest in claiming the abovesaid subsidy amount and thus as per meetings and discussions with the defendant, the defendant vide his offer letter dated 11-06-2012 agreed and confirmed to offer the job/assignment to the plaintiff for claiming the 24% of capital subsidy against the project of installation of four colour offset printing machines which the defendant had implemented by way of availing term loan etc and the plaintiff agreed to accept the offer of the assignment and thereafter doing the necessary ground work, preparation of documents, follow up with various officials/departments involved till the finalization of the settlement of the defendants claim, upon an agreed professional charges of 24% of the Capital subsidy amount which charges were to be received by the plaintiff after the receipt o the capital subsidy by the defendant from the concerned department. The Suit No:610563/2016, Mr. V.P. Sharma Vs. M/s Ratna Offsets Ltd.
3said professional charges were agreed to be payable only upon the receipt of the claimed amount of subsidy and to start after the signing of the copy of the letter dated 11-06-2012, containing all the terms and conditions, and further the defendant did not agree to pay any upfront advance amount, but promised to make the whole payment of the commission amount at the time of receipt of the capital subsidy amount from the government of India. It was further agreed that in case the said assignment is not completed or the subsidy is not received by the defendant then no amount shall be payable to the plaintiff by the defendant.
3. According to plaint, the plaintiff duly accepted the offer letter dated 11-06-2012 in which it was clearly mentioned that the defendant had agreed to make the payment of the plaintiffs fee/bill immediately upon the receipt of the Capital Subsidy from the concerned Government Department. The plaintiff stated to have professionally handled everything during the Liasoning, and was able to successfully recover the amount of Capital Subsidy from the concerned Government Department and finally as per confirmed information of the plaintiff , the amount of Rs.15 lacs was transferred/credited in the defendant's bank account of Allahabad Bank, Varanasi Branch. Plaintiff has placed on record the copy of the account/receipt of subsidy in the bank account of the plaintiff.
4. It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff is entitle to receive the payment from the defendant i.e. Professional charges @24% on the amount of Rs.15 lacs, which comes to Rs.3,60,000/-, accordingly the plaintiff raised the bill of Rs.3,60,000/- and the defendant was requested to clear the bill Suit No:610563/2016, Mr. V.P. Sharma Vs. M/s Ratna Offsets Ltd.
4as early as possible but despite repeated request and legal notice dt. 17-04-2014 the defendant has failed to pay the said amount to the plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff is also entitled to the said amount along with interest @24% per annum.
5. In its written statement it is stated by the defendant that defendant is a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its office at Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh and carrying on the business of printing and allied activities and defendant imported Heidelberg Machine from Germany for the said purpose through finance availed from its bankers, Allahabad Bank, Varansi. It is stated that plaintiff had gathered information from his sources about the import of the machines by the defendant and with the intention to defraud the defendant and recover money from the defendant, the plaintiff hatched a conspiracy and approached the defendant at Varansi and offered his services for the claim of 15% of capital subsidy under the Credit Linked Capital Subsidy Scheme (CLCSS) of the Government of India and plaintiff in order to cheat the defendant represented to the defendant that he is familiar with government procedures and would successfully complete the formalities for subsidy. The defendant had offered to the plaintiff the assignment for claiming the abovesaid subsidy provided under the CLCSS as stipulated in the letter dt. 11-06-2012 executed by the defendant at Varanasi. It is stated that it was agreed that plaintiff would be responsible for doing the necessary ground work, preparation of all necessary documents to be submitted with defendant's banker for onward transmission to the appointed Nodal Agency and to carry out all necessary follow up Suit No:610563/2016, Mr. V.P. Sharma Vs. M/s Ratna Offsets Ltd.
5action and to comply with all necessary guidelines and requirements to receives the permissible Capital Subsidy. It is further stated by the defendant that it was very specifically and categorically stated by the defendant that the agreed professional charges would be payable to the plaintiff only upon satisfactory completion of the entire process of claiming subsidy by the plaintiff and upon the receipt of subsidy by the defendant. It is contended by the defendant that pursuant to being entrusted the above assignment, absolutely no action regarding the same was taken up from the plaintiff end and defendant follow-up through frequent phone calls and reminders. The plaintiff intentionally failed take necessary action in the matter and have committed a breach of trust and have cheated the defendant. Under such circumstances, the defendant was constrained to initiated the process of claiming subsidy on their own, without any kind of processional guidance or service from the plaintiff.
It is denied by defendant that he approached the plaintiff and showed his interest in claiming the subsidy amount. It is also denied that the professional charges were agreed to be payable only upon the receipt of claimed amount of subsidy and to start after the signing of the letter dt. 11-06-2012, containing all the terms and conditions and further the defendant did not agree to pay the upfront advance amount but promised to make whole payment of the commission amount at the time of receipt of Capital Subsidy amount from the Government of India. It is stated that the plaintiff approached to the defendant at the Head Office at Varanasi and defendant offered the plaintiff to the assignment as mentioned in preliminary objections. It is denied Suit No:610563/2016, Mr. V.P. Sharma Vs. M/s Ratna Offsets Ltd.
6that defendant agreed to make the payment to the plaintiff fee/bill immediately upon receipt of the capital subsidy from the concerned Government Department. It is denied that the plaintiff professionally handled everything during the liasoning and was able to successfully recover the amount of subsidy and finally as per confirmed information of the plaintiff the amount of Rs.15 lacs was transferred/credited in the bank account of defendant. It is stated that there is no question of any professional charges without making any professional efforts by the plaintiff and no amount is due to be paid to the plaintiff by the defendant. It is stated that defendant is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff as claimed by him in the present suit. It is stated that legal notice dt. 17-04-2014 sent by the plaintiff to the defendant was based on false, frivolous and concocted facts and defendant duly replied the same. Defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff.
6. In his replication the plaintiff has reiterated the averments of the plaint and denied the contentions made by the defendant in the written statement.
7. From the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed for the trial of the case:-
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of money as claimed ? OPP (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the interest on the amount claimed, if yes, at what rate and for which period ? OPP Suit No:610563/2016, Mr. V.P. Sharma Vs. M/s Ratna Offsets Ltd.7
(3) Whether the plaintiff has not complied with the terms and conditions of the contract/letter dated 11-06-2012?
OPD (4) Whether this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit ? OPD (5) Relief.
8. Sh. V.P. Sharma has been examined as PW1, who has filed his evidenciary affidavit by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW1/A bearing his signature at point A and B. The letter dated 11-06- 2012 is Ex.PW1/1. E-ticket/reservations details regarding visit of the deponent/PW1 to Varanasi by Air is Ex.PW1/2. The bunch of the papers submitted on behalf of the defendant are marked as Mark A to Mark J. Bill of Rs.3,60,000/- raised by the plaintiff is Ex. PW1/3. Copy of legal notice dt. 17-04-2014 is Ex. Pw1/4. The postal receipt of said notice is Ex.PW1/5 & Ex.Pw1/6, the courier receipts are Ex.Pw1/7 & Ex.Pw1/8. A/D card is Ex. Pw1/9 and envelope containing legal notice received back unclaimed is Ex. Pw1/10. Reply of the defendant to legal notice is Ex. PW1/11. The print out of the credit of Rs.15 lacs issued on the website of the Ministry is Ex. PW1/12 (collectively) containing the name of the beneficiary at serial No:844.
9. Despite repeated opportunity the defendant has failed to cross examine PW1, therefore, the cross on behalf of defendant of PW1 remains Nil.
10. No other witness was examined by the plaintiff and plaintiff closed his evidence on 11-05-2018.
Suit No:610563/2016, Mr. V.P. Sharma Vs. M/s Ratna Offsets Ltd.
811. Despite repeated opportunities the defendant has failed to lead its evidence, therefore, the evidence of the defendant was closed vide order dated 16-01-2020 and the matter was fixed for final argument.
12. I have heard the final argument on behalf of the plaintiff and gone through the written submissions on record. My findings on the issues are as under:-
13. ISSUE No. (4) Whether this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit ? OPD The ISSUE No.4 relates to the jurisdiction of this court and will be disposed of first.
The understanding between the parties was executed at Delhi. The follow-up etc. was done at Delhi. The recovery of capital subsidy from Government departments under the concerned Ministry was done at Delhi. The plaintiff was to receive the payment at Delhi where it was having its office. The ground-work on part of the plaintiff was supposed to be done from Delhi. S.20(c ) CPC gives liberty to a plaintiff to file a suit in a court within whose jurisdiction the cause of action wholly or in part arises. In order to appreciate this aspect of the matter, one needs to understand what would constitute a cause of action. Cause of action, as commonly understood, is a bundle of facts which the plaintiff must prove, if traversed, to entitle him to a judgment, in his favour, by the concerned court.
Cause of action has no relation whatsoever with the defence set up by the defendant nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. In this context, the following observations of the Supreme Court made in Oil and Suit No:610563/2016, Mr. V.P. Sharma Vs. M/s Ratna Offsets Ltd.
9Natural Gas Commission vs Utpal Kumar Basu & Ors. (1994) 4 SCC 711 at page 717, in paragraph 6 being apposite, are extracted hereinafter:
"....6. It is well settled that the expression "cause of action"
means that bundle of facts which the petitioner must prove, if traversed, to entitle him to a judgment in his favour by the Court. In Chand Kour v. Partab Singh Lord Watson said: "... the cause of action has no relation whatever to the defence which may be set up by the defendant, nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. It refers entirely to the ground set forth in the plaint as the cause of action, or, in other words, to the media upon which the plaintiff asks the Court to arrive at a conclusion in his favour."
In view of the facts of the present case and the case laws on the point, part of cause of action is falling in Delhi therefore Delhi Court will have jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. Thus ISSUE No.4 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
14. ISSUE No.(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of money as claimed ? OPP Issue No. (3) Whether the plaintiff has not complied with the terms and conditions of the contract/letter dated 11-06-2012? OPD The Issues No.1 & 3 shall be disposed of together. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant had issued letter dated 11.06.2012 (Ex.PW-1/1 : Admitted document) Suit No:610563/2016, Mr. V.P. Sharma Vs. M/s Ratna Offsets Ltd.
10thereby stating that the defendant shall be utilizing the services of the plaintiff on agreed terms including that the plaintiff shall be entitled to "professional charges" equal to the amount of 24% of Capital Subsidy to be received by the defendant. The plaintiff stated to have professionally handled everything during the Liasoning, and was able to successfully recover the amount of Capital Subsidy from the concerned Government Department and finally as per confirmed information of the plaintiff , the amount of Rs.15 lacs was transferred/credited in the defendant's bank account of Allahabad Bank, Varanasi Branch. Plaintiff has placed adduced the copy account/receipt of subsidy in the bank account of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is seeking recovery of the payment from the defendant i.e. Professional charges @24% on the amount of Rs.15 lacs, which comes to Rs.3,60,000/-. Accordingly the plaintiff raised the bill of Rs.3,60,000/- and the defendant was requested to clear the bill as early as possible but despite repeated request and legal notice dt. 17-04-2014 (Ex.PW1/4 : Admitted document) the defendant has failed to pay the said amount to the plaintiff. The reply of the defendant is Ex.PW-1/11 : Admitted document). The defense of the defendant is that despite agreed terms as per letter dated 11.06.2012 (Ex.PW-1/1) no action was taken by the plaintiff and that the defendant had been able to receive the subsidy on its own efforts.
The plaintiff has adduced document Ex.PW-1/12 to show that the defendant had received the desired subsidy. The plaintiff has also been able to show that the amount of Rs.15 Lakh was credited in the bank account of the defendant.
Moreover, the defendant has not been able to show that it Suit No:610563/2016, Mr. V.P. Sharma Vs. M/s Ratna Offsets Ltd.
11had made efforts etc. There is nothing on record to suggest that the defendant had initially informed the plaintiff before the receiving of the subsidy into its bank account that the 'entire efforts' were made by the defendant itself. It is only in response to the Legal notice of the plaintiff that the defendant wrote to the defendant about it. There is also nothing as evidence to suggest that the defendant had revoked the agreement of understanding vide letter dated 11.06.2012 (Ex.PW-1.1) which is an admitted document. That goes to say that the defendant raised an afterthought after the whole work was done.
15. The plaintiff has been able to prove its case and is entitled to the amount of Rs.3,60,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh and sixty thousand only). Thus the issue no:1 & 3 are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
16. ISSUE No. (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the interest on the amount claimed, if yes, at what rate and for which period ? OPP In view of my findings on the above issues, I hold that the plaintiff-herein is entitled to the interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of Rs.3,60,000/- from the date of the institution of the present suit i.e. 06.06.2015 till its realization.
17. RELIEF In view of my findings on the issues, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in favour of the plantiff and against the defendant. Plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.3,60,000 ( Rupees three lacs and sixty thousands) along with the interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of Rs.3,60,000/- from the date of the institution of the present suit i.e. 06.06.2015 till the Suit No:610563/2016, Mr. V.P. Sharma Vs. M/s Ratna Offsets Ltd.
12realization of the decreetal amount. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room. Digitally signed by VEENA VEENA RANI RANI Date:
2022.05.25 Announced in the open court. 14:52:41 +0530 ( VEENA RANI ) Additional District Judge-06, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Judge Code : DL271/Date:24-05-2022 Suit No:610563/2016, Mr. V.P. Sharma Vs. M/s Ratna Offsets Ltd.13
IN THE COURT OF MS.VEENA RANI :ADJ-06, WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI Suit No:610563/2016 ( New) & Old Case No:86/2015 CNR No:DLWTO1-002007-2015 Mr. V.P. Sharma .....Plaintiff Versus M/s Ratna Offsets Ltd. .....Defendants 24-05-2022 Present: Sh. Pankaj Bagga,Ld. counsel for the plaintiff.
None for the defendant.
Vide my separate judgment, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room. Digitally signed by VEENA VEENA RANI Date:
RANI 2022.05.25
14:51:51
Announced in the open court. +0530
( VEENA RANI )
Additional District Judge-06,
West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
Judge Code : DL271/Date:24-05-2022
Suit No:610563/2016, Mr. V.P. Sharma Vs. M/s Ratna Offsets Ltd.