Delhi District Court
And Its Sales Office At vs Mr. Neeraj Jain on 25 July, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIKRANT VAID:
ACJ/CCJ/ARC(SOUTH EAST DISTRICT),
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS No. 53038/16
M/s Comnet Vision (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Having its Registered Office at:
706, Vishal Bhawan 95,
Nehru Place, New Delhi110019
And its Sales Office at:
B1, Aggarwal Bhawan, 3536,
Nehru Place, New Delhi110019 ....Plaintiff
Versus
Mr. Neeraj Jain
Prop. M/s Swastik Industries
Plot No.469470, E.P.I.P,
Phase IV, Sector53,
Kundli, Sonipat,
Haryana131028 ....Defendant
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 1,08,547/
Date of filing- 21.12.2016
Date of Judgment- 25.07.2018
JUDGMENT
1. It is plaintiff's case that the plaintiff is a Private Limited Company, duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of sale of computer, peripherals, software sale and support etc. Defendant became one of the customers of the plaintiff company and approached him for M/s Comnet Vision (India) Pvt. Ltd. CS No.53038/16 Page 1 of 6 Vs. M/s Swastik Industries supply of 2 numbers of Microsoft Win SVRSTD 2012 R2 SGNL OLPNL and 25 numbers of MS Win SVR CAL 2012 SNGL of OPL NL USRCAL and placed order via email. The ordered goods were duly supplied by the plaintiff company to the defendant and the same was duly received/acknowledged by the defendant. The plaintiff company is maintaining a running account in the name of defendant at its Registered / Sales Office and has duly recorded all the transactions which had taken place from time to time between the plaintiff and defendant. The statement of account maintained by the plaintiff shows that as on 16.05.2015 a total amount of Rs. 1,08,547/ remained outstanding to be payable by the defendant company. It is averred that despite repeated requests for the payment of the above said due amount, the defendant company willfully and intentionally avoided to make the above cited outstanding payment of Rs. 1,08,547/. It is averred that due to the aforesaid reasons the plaintiff company was constrained to get a legal notice dated 31.08.2016 issued. It is averred that the defendant company despite receipt of the said notice failed to comply with the requirements of the notice. Hence, the present suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 1,08,547/along with pendente lite and future interest @ 24% per annum w.e.f. 16.05.2015 till realization of the amount in favour of the plaintiff company and against the defendant.
2. In written statement, defendant raised the preliminary objection that no contract as alleged by the plaintiff was ever executed and the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff to M/s Comnet Vision (India) Pvt. Ltd. CS No.53038/16 Page 2 of 6 Vs. M/s Swastik Industries extort money from the defendant. It was averred that this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. On merits, defendant denied that he became the customer of plaintiff company and placed any order to him. It was further denied that the alleged goods were ever supplied by the plaintiff company to him. Defendant further specifically denied the averments made in the plaint.
3. Replication was filed by the plaintiff wherein he denied the averments made in the written statement and reasserted averments made in the plaint.
4. After completion of pleadings, the following issues were framed: i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs. 1,08,547/ along with pendente lite and future interest @ 24% per annum? OPP ii. Whether this court has the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD iii. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is without any cause of action? OPD
5. Sh. Dhirender Kumar, AR of the plaintiff company was examined as sole witness as PW1. He tendered the affidavit of evidence as Ex. PW1/A. He reiterated the averments made in the plaint and proved the following documents:
i) Certificate of Incorporation of the plaintiff company as Ex.PW1/1.
ii) Board Resolution dated 21.11.2016 as Ex.
PW1/2.
M/s Comnet Vision (India) Pvt. Ltd. CS No.53038/16 Page 3 of 6Vs. M/s Swastik Industries
iii) Copy of the email dated 02.05.2015 as Ex. PW1/3.
iv) Purchase order as Ex. PW1/4.
v) Office copy of Retail Invoice/Bill as Ex. PW1/5.
vi) Attested copy of the statement of account is Ex. PW1/6.
vii) Copies of emails are Ex.PW1/7 (Colly).
viii) Office copy of legal notice dated 31.08.2016 is Ex.PW1/8.
ix) Speed post receipt is Ex.PW1/9.
x) Microsoft Open License Purchase Order A177211 confirmation document is Ex.PW1/10 (Colly).
xi) Microsoft email forwarded by Sh. Sudhir Pandey Containing invoice details generated by Microsoft as Ex.PW1/11 (Colly).
6. Perusal of record reveals that since 25.08.2017, the defendant has not appeared before the Court. Since then seven dates of hearing have lapsed. Although, there is no specific order as to the defendant being proceeded against exparte, yet, order sheet dated 05.06.2018 speaks that the matter has been kept for exparte final arguments. It goes without saying that the defendant has been proceeded against exparte.
7. I have heard the arguments and considered the material on record.
8. My issue wise findings are as follows: Issue No.1 i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs. 1,08,547/ along with pendente lite and future interest @ 24% per annum? OPP.
M/s Comnet Vision (India) Pvt. Ltd. CS No.53038/16 Page 4 of 6Vs. M/s Swastik Industries The authorized representative/signatory of the plaintiff company was examined as PW1 in order to prove the plaintiff's case. PW1 has deposed in consistence with the plaintiff's case. The deposition of PW1 went unchallenged as he was not cross examined. I have no reason to disbelieve the unrebutted testimony of PW1 and veracity of the documents proved as Ex PW1/1 to Ex PW1/11 (Colly). Hence, I find that the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs. 1,08,547/.
Further, the plaintiff is claiming interest @ 24% p.a. which in my opinion is exorbitant and unreasonable. Considering the totality of circumstances, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if plaintiff is granted interest @ 6% p.a. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of plaintiff to the extent mentioned above.
Issue no. 2 & 3 ii. Whether this court has the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD.
iii. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is without any cause of action? OPD.
9. The onus of proving these issues rests upon the defendant. However, there is no documentary, oral or circumstantial evidence on record to prove these issues against the plaintiff. Accordingly, these issues are also decided in favour of M/s Comnet Vision (India) Pvt. Ltd. CS No.53038/16 Page 5 of 6 Vs. M/s Swastik Industries plaintiff and against the defendant.
10. In light of the findings on above issues, the suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed and it is held that defendant is liable to pay Rs. 1,08,547/alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f 21.12.2016 till realization of the decretal amount.
11. Costs of the suit are awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
12. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Announced in the open Court (Vikrant Vaid) th today on 25 July, 2018 ACJ/CCJ/ARC(SE) Saket Courts, New Delhi M/s Comnet Vision (India) Pvt. Ltd. CS No.53038/16 Page 6 of 6 Vs. M/s Swastik Industries