Delhi District Court
Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Gupta vs ) M/S Samtel Color Ltd on 24 February, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. RACHNA TIWARI LAKHANPAL
SCJ/RC(WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Suit No.- 101/2013
Unique Case ID : 02401C-017061-2013
Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Gupta
Sole Proprietor
M/s National Products
A-32, Mayapuri Industrial Area
Phase-II, Mayapuri
New Delhi-110064 ...........Plaintiff
Versus
1) M/s Samtel Color Ltd.
6th Floor, 7 TDI Centre
District Centre, Jasola
New Delhi-110025
Also at:-
Chhapraula, Bulandshahar Road
Ghaziabad, UP-0120-4182600
2) Mr. Satish K. Kura
Managing Director & Chairman
M/s Samtel Color Ltd
6th Floor, 7 TDI Centre
District Centre, Jasola
New Delhi-110025 ...........Defendants
Date of filing of the suit : 08.04.2013
Date of reserving Judgment : 21.02.2015
Date of pronouncement : 24.02.2015
EX- PARTE JUDGMENT
1.Vide this ex-parte judgment, I shall decide the suit for recovery of Rs. 15,103.94/- filed by the plaintiff against the defendants.
Suit No. 101/13 Page..... 1/4
2. Sh. P.K. Bagachi was authorized to institute, sign, verify, file and prosecute the present suit vide GPA dated 08.11.12.
3. Initially, the suit was filed against three defendants namely, M/s Samtel Color Ltd. Defelection, its Managing Director & Chairman Sh. Satish K. Kura and its Manager-Material Sh. Manoj Kumar but later on, the defendant no. 3 Sh. Manoj Kumar was deleted from the array of parties upon the request of Ld. counsel for the plaintiff vide order dated 05.09.14.
4. FACTS IN BRIEF:- The plaintiff is the sole proprietor of M/s National Products and is engaged inter-alia in the business of manufacturing and selling of solder wires since 1986. The defendant no. 1 is a limited company and the defendant no. 2 is the Managing Director & Chairman of the defendant no. 1.
As per the plaint, the defendant no. 2 alongwith Sh. Manoj Kaushik (earlier the defendant no. 3) approached the plaintiff, in the year 2011, at his Mayapuri Branch and placed some orders for the supply of Solder Sticks at the factory of the defendant no. 1 situated at Chhapraula, U.P. Against the purchase order, the plaintiff had issued a tax/retail invoice no. 01343 dated 04.10.2011. The goods mentioned in the purchase order were duly received by the defendant no. 1 in good condition. On behalf of the defendant no. 1, the defendant no. 2 and Sh. Manoj Kaushik (earlier the defendant no.3) gave assurance to the plaintiff to make the payment of outstanding amount of Rs. 15,103.94 against the purchase order and tax/retail invoice. However, no payment was made by the defendants despite repeated calls and requests of the plaintiff. Hence, on 24.01.2013, the plaintiff sent a legal notice to the defendants but the defendants did not make any payment. Accordingly, the present suit has been filed.
Suit No. 101/13 Page..... 2/4
5. WRITTEN STATEMENT:- Defendant no. 1 and 2 were served with the summons. WS was filed on behalf of the defendant no. 1 and 2 whereby the contents mentioned in the plaint were denied and it was submitted that the present suit is beyond jurisdiction as the firm of the defendant no. 1, from where the alleged purchase order was placed, is situated at Village Chhapraula, District Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. Supply of the material was also allegedly made at the said place, which is outside the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of this court. Further, it is submitted that the suit has been filed without any cause of action and is barred by the law of limitation.
6 REPLICATION:- Replication was filed by the plaintiff and the facts mentioned in the plaint were reiterated and re-affirmed and contents of the WS were denied. It is submitted that the purchase order has been placed at Mayapuri, Industrial Area, where the outlet of the plaintiff is situated and substantial part of cause of action arose within the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of this court.
7. After filing of the WS, the defendant no. 1 and 2 stopped appearing before the court and accordingly, they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 22.02.2014.
8. EVIDENCE:- Plaintiff led his ex-parte evidence. In ex-parte evidence, the plaintiff has examined his authorized representative Sh. P.K. Bagchi as PW-1, who filed his evidence by way of affidavit on the lines of the plaint and placed on record the following documents;
a) copy of GPA executed by the plaintiff in favour of Sh. P.K. Bagchi as Ex. PW-1/1 (OSR);
b) copy of purchase order dated 14.09.2011 and original retail invoice
Suit No. 101/13 Page..... 3/4
no. 01343 dated 04.10.2011 as Ex. PW-1/2 (colly);
c) copy of legal notice dated 24.01.13 and its postal receipts as
Ex. PW-1/3 and Ex. PW-1/4 respectively.
9. COURT'S FINDINGS:- From the documents placed on record, it is proved that the defendants purchased the goods from the plaintiff and defaulted in making the payment. Further, there is no reason to dis-believe the unchallenged and uncross-examined testimony of the PW-1. Thus, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed and a decree for a sum of Rs. 15,103.94/- is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants no. 1 and 2. The plaintiff is also entitled to interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the filing of the suit till the date of passing of order. The plaintiff is further entitled to interest @ 6% per annaum from the date of order till realization along with costs of the suit. Both the defendants are jointly or severally liable to pay the decreetal amount. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (RACHNA TIWARI LAKHANPAL) COURT ON 24.02.2015 SCJ/RC(WEST)/ DELHI Suit No. 101/13 Page..... 4/4