Delhi District Court
One97 Communications Ltd vs R. Santhosh on 25 November, 2024
IN THE COURT OF DR. NEERA BHARIHOKE
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-06
SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLSE01-004924-2023
CS (Comm) 422/2023
One97 Communications Ltd.,
A company incorporated
under the provisions of Companies
Act, 1956, having its registered
office at:
First Floor, Devika Tower
Nehru place,
New Delhi-110019
Corporate office at:
B-121, Sector-5,
Noida-201301
... Plaintiff
Versus
Sh.R. Santhosh
Prop. of Sharada Talkies
Having its office at:
No.7, OTC Road,
Near SP Road,
Bangalore,
Karnataka-560002 ....Defendant
Date of institution of the suit : 03.05.2023
Date on which judgment was reserved : 12.11.2024
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 25.11.2024 NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Digitally signed
by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2024.11.25
16:41:27 +0530
CS (Comm) 422/23 One97 Communications Ltd. Vs. R. Santhosh Page 1 of 19
JUDGMENT
SUIT FOR RECOVERY
1. By way of this judgment, I shall decide the suit of the Plaintiff filed for recovery of Rs.5,00,000/- alongwith interest.
CASE OF THE Plaintiff AS SET UP IN THE PLAINT
2. Brief facts of the case as stated by the Plaintiff in the plaint are that:
a. The Plaintiff company is engaged in the business of providing telecom based value added services to its clients and is one of the well-known online platform in India for providing services related to utility bill payments, recharges, ticketing including various types of travel and movie ticketing, hotel booking, and various other financial services to consumers. The Plaintiff company is owner of the website www.paytm.com, Paytm mobile application, PaytmIVR and Paytm WAP site.
b. Present suit has been filed through Shri Jitender Kumar. Being completely aware about the facts of the present matter, he has been authorized by the Plaintiff Company to represent it in the present matter vide Board Resolution dated 25.02.2021.
c. The Defendant approached the Plaintiff company for the promotions, NEERA BHARIHOKE marketing, listing and booking of movie tickets of his cinema theater Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2024.11.25 CS (Comm) 422/23 One97 Communications Ltd. Vs. R. Santhosh Page 2 of 19 16:41:34 +0530 namely Sharada Talkies through Plaintiff company's Platform. On the basis of the said representation/warranties made by the Defendant, the Plaintiff company agreed to enter into a Ticketing Agreement dated 07.12.2016 with the Defendant to upload the ticket inventory of Defendant's theater and provide related products and services alongwith digital contents and such other information for listing the same on the Paytm Platform. It was further agreed that Defendant would offer the movies tickets booking through Paytm Platform as per the terms and conditions stipulated in the said Agreement entered into between the Defendant and Plaintiff Company. It was further agreed that Defendant would offer the movies ticket booking through Paytm Platform as per the terms and conditions of Schedule A & B of the said Agreement.
d. The Principal Agreement was effective from 07.12.2016 for the above said objective by Defendant through Paytm Platform. An Addendum Agreement dated 04.01.2017 (due to typographical mistake it was written as 04.01.2016) was executed between the Plaintiff company and Defendant to the principal agreement, effective from the said date till the date of maturity.
e. As per Clause 4 of the said Agreement, the Defendant was contractually obligated to provide/update and maintain the ticket inventory and fix rates of ticket booking in respect of his theater NEERA alongwith any and all additional services ought to be availed by BHARIHOKE customers at the theater of the Defendant.Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2024.11.25
CS (Comm) 422/23 One97 Communications Ltd. Vs. R. Santhosh Page 3 of 19 16:41:44 +0530 f. As per the said Agreement, the Defendant had to exclusively book movie tickets of his theater through the online platform of Plaintiff company i.e. www.paytm.com and www.ticketnew.com by "API" (Application Programming Interface) integrating his online platform with the online platform of the Plaintiff company through WAP or GPRS enabled mobile phones. Clause 1.6 and 1.9 of the said Agreement defines Merchant theater(s) and Paytm Platform as under:
"1.6. "Merchant theater(s)" shall mean any (present and future) cinema (including single screen theaters and multiplex theaters) owned, operated and/or managed by Merchant, details of Merchant theaters as on the Effective Date is given in Schedule C."
"1.9. "Payment Platform" shall include (individually as well as collectively):
a) mobile applications;
b) through the internet, facilitated through the website www.paytm.com.
c) other technology employed/utilized by OneI7 in future for and under brand Paytm only; "
g. Clause 4 of the said Agreement, provides the scope of work which reads as under:
"4 Merchant has agreed to offer the Ticket Booking through the Paytm Platform and in this connection has agreed to upload the Inventory in respect of the identified number of the seats for Tickets in the Merchant theater for online Booking through Paytm Platform and such other details including any terms and conditions for availing the Bookings, if any, and more specifically NEERA provided in Schedule A. Merchant shall be solely responsible to BHARIHOKE pay all relevant taxes (including but not limited to entertainment Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2024.11.25 CS (Comm) 422/23 One97 Communications Ltd. Vs. R. Santhosh Page 4 of 19 16:41:51 +0530 tax in respect of the inventory of Tickets being sold through the Paytm Platform."
h. By virtue of the addendum agreement hereinabove mentioned, the Plaintiff company paid the Defendant an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- which was deemed to be paid at the time of execution of the said principal Agreement as interest free refundable security deposit. Clause 3 of the said Addendum Agreement is reproduced herein below:
"3. Sub clause (6) with title "Security Deposit" is hereby added under Schedule B in the Principal Agreement and shall be read as under:
(6) Security Deposit: "Paytm shall pay an interest free refundable security deposit to the Merchant amount INR 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only). Merchant agrees and acknowledge that under no circumstances the Security Deposit shall be deducted/withhold/set off during the term of the Principal Agreement. The said security deposit will refunded by the Merchant to Paytm within 7 days of the termination of this Agreement."
i. The Plaintiff company in view of the services rendered to Defendant was entitled to charge convenience fee from the customers on every ticket booked through paytm platform over and above the selling price of the tickets booked through the paytm platform. Clause 1 of Schedule B annexed to the said Agreement reads as under:
"1. Convenience Fee: Merchant agrees that Paytm shall be entitled to charge a Convenience Fee from the Customers on every Ticket Booked through Paytm Platforms over and above the selling price of the Tickets Booked through the Paytm Platform NEERA BHARIHOKE and Paytm agrees to share the said Net Convenience Fee (i.e. Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2024.11.25 CS (Comm) 422/23 One97 Communications Ltd. Vs. R. Santhosh Page 5 of 19 16:42:01 +0530 Convenience Fee collected minus payment gateway charges) in the following ratio: Paytm's share 70% of the Net Convenience Fee and Merchant's share 30% of the Net Convenience Fee. Payment gateway charges will be applicant on the total transaction value @, 2% (excluding taxes). Taxes will be as applicable extra"
j. The Plaintiff company as per the said agreement with a view to integrate platform of Defendant with his own platform had to install hardware at Defendant's theater. The Plaintiff company installed cpu, keyboard, mouse, monitor, ups and printer at the movie theater of Defendant.
k. As per clause 4 of the said agreement, the Defendant was contractually obligated to provide/update and upload the ticket inventory and fix rates of ticket booking in respect of its theater alongwith any and all additional services ought to be availed by customers at the theater of Defendant. The tenure of the agreement was also extended vide e-mail dated 14.04.2020 and 19.04.2020.
l. The cinema theater of the Defendant was operational up till April, 2022, however, since then Defendant has abruptly ceased operations without any prior notice or ascribing any reason to Plaintiff company. When the representatives of Plaintiff company approached the Defendant requesting resumption of theater operations, the Defendant assured the Plaintiff company that the same shall be NEERA resumed, however, the same has not been resumed. Despite multiple BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (Comm) 422/23 One97 Communications Ltd. Vs. R. Santhosh Page 6 of 19 Date:
2024.11.25 16:42:08 +0530requests to resume operations, the Defendant failed to resume the same and cinema theater had not been made operational by the Defendant.
m. The Defendant through application programming interface (API) was contractually bound to offer movie tickets through platform of the Plaintiff company and to upload movie tickets regularly and further control rates and inventory of the booking.
n. The objective and reason in gaining exclusivity for selling movie tickets through online platform was that huge expenses were incurred in creating the infrastructure for booking and offering movie tickets through online platform which also encompassed within itself other expenses which were incurred at the backend of the platform of the online aggregator for connecting platform of the merchant with that of the online aggregator.
o. It was clear from the acts of the Defendant that he had no intention to honour the agreement since inception, instead, had the intention of misappropriating the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards itself, thereby causing wrongful gain to the Defendant while causing wrongful loss to the Plaintiff company. Such acts of the Defendant had shaken the trust, faith and confidence the Plaintiff company had reposed in NEERA Defendant at the time of executing the agreement believing his BHARIHOKE representation to be true. Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date:
2024.11.25 16:42:15 +0530 CS (Comm) 422/23 One97 Communications Ltd. Vs. R. Santhosh Page 7 of 19 p. The entire purpose and aim of execution of said agreement was to sell tickets of cinema theater of Defendant exclusively through online platform of Plaintiff company, however, in the absence of such intent on the Defendant's part, the Plaintiff company was constrained to terminate the said principal agreement dated 07.12.2016 alongwith addendum Agreement dated 04.01.2017 vide termination notice dated 13.12.2022.
q. The Defendant had committed fraud with the Plaintiff company by alluring and inducing the Plaintiff company by offering exclusive rights for selling online movie tickets of his theater through the platform of the Plaintiff company, which it never intended to grant and confer to the Plaintiff company as a result the Defendant extracted huge amount of money from the Plaintiff company thereby causing huge financial loss to the Plaintiff company besides loss of image before e-commerce industry.
r. The Defendant was liable to return amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to Plaintiff company as details mentioned below:
Sr.no. Particulars Amount
1.Outstanding Security Deposit Rs.5,00,000/-
--------------------
Total Rs.5,00,000/-
--------------------
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
s. The Defendant was also liable to pay pendent lite and future interest Digitally signed @18% per annum to the Plaintiff on the overdue amount. by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2024.11.25 16:42:24 +0530 CS (Comm) 422/23 One97 Communications Ltd. Vs. R. Santhosh Page 8 of 19 t. It was the duty of the Defendant to return the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to Plaintiff company as the Defendant was unable to run the cinema theater.
u. The Plaintiff company was suffering huge financial loss due to the acts and misconduct of the Defendant in retaining the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the prejudice of the Plaintiff company.
v. The Defendant deliberately, intentionally and due to ulterior motive was retaining the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- so as to cause wrongful gain to himself and wrongful loss to Plaintiff company.
w. The Plaintiff company also sent notice dated 13.12.2022 to the Defendant calling upon the Defendant to pay amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the Plaintiff company but the Defendant despite receipt of the said notice, willfully and deliberately avoided to comply the said legal notice.
x. The Plaintiff preferred a Pre-litigation/Pre-Institution Mediation before the Competent Authority, i.e. SEDLSA, on 19.01.2023, however Defendant did not appear before the Competent Authority. Furthermore, the Non-Starter Report for the Pre-Institution Mediation was issued by the Competent Authority, SEDLSA, dated 21.02.2023. Digitally signed by NEERA
3. Hence, the present suit has been filed. NEERA BHARIHOKE BHARIHOKE Date:
2024.11.25 16:42:32 +0530 CS (Comm) 422/23 One97 Communications Ltd. Vs. R. Santhosh Page 9 of 19 CASE OF THE DEFENDANT
4. The Defendant was served through WhatsApp and e-mail on 23.05.2023. However, the Defendant appeared through Counsel on 13.10.2023 and sought time of 4 weeks to file Written Statement. However, in view of law laid down in M/s SCG Contracts Pvt. Ltd. vs. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd & Ors., C.A. no. 1638/2019, arising out of SLP(C) no. 103/2019, decided on 12.02.2019, the opportunity of the Defendant to file Written Statement was closed on 13.10.2023 and the matter was fixed for Plaintiff's Evidence.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
5. Plaintiff examined PW-1 Shri Jitendra Kumar. He presented his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex. PW-1/A. He reiterated the contents of the plaint and relied upon the following documents: -
a) The Certificate of Incorporation is Ex. PW-1/1 (original was seen and returned).
b) Board Resolution dated 25.02.2021 is Ex. PW-1/2 (original was seen and returned).
c) Ticketing Agreement dated 07.12.2016 is Ex. PW-1/3 (original was seen and returned).
d) Addendum No.1 dated 04.01.2017 is Ex. PW-1/4 (original was seen NEERA BHARIHOKE and returned).Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2024.11.25 16:42:40 +0530 CS (Comm) 422/23 One97 Communications Ltd. Vs. R. Santhosh Page 10 of 19
e) The Statement of Account is Ex. PW-1/4 (inadvertently mentioned twice in the affidavit)
f) E-mails dated 14.04.2020 and 19.04.2020 are Ex.PW-1/5 (Collectively.)
g) Notice dated 13.12.2022 is Ex.PW-1/6.
h) Postal Receipt Mark A.
6. Vide order dated 13.10.2023 of my learned Predecessor, the right of the Defendant for filing Written Statement was closed. The Defendant had been appearing on various dates. However, at the stage of Plaintiff's Evidence, PW-1 was examined in chief, but learned Counsel for Defendant sought adjournment and the matter was adjourned to 12.12.2023. However, on 12.12.2023, cross-examination of PW-1 was concluded as Defendant failed to avail the opportunity of cross examining PW-1. PW-1 was discharged on 12.12.2023.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
7. As right of the Defendant to file Written Statement was closed, the matter was not adjourned for Defendant's Evidence and final arguments were heard in part on same day and matter was adjourned for conclusion of arguments.
8. The Defendant in the meantime filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC which was adjourned for arguments for 18.05.2024 vide NEERA BHARIHOKE order dated 18.04.2024. However, none appeared for Plaintiff despite Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2024.11.25 16:42:47 +0530 CS (Comm) 422/23 One97 Communications Ltd. Vs. R. Santhosh Page 11 of 19 repeated calls on 18.05.2024 and the matter was dismissed for non- appearance of the Plaintiff.
9. Vide order dated, the application for restoration filed by Plaintiff was allowed and the present suit was restored to its original number. Arguments were thereafter heard on application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC which was dismissed vide order dated 08.10.2024.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
10. At the stage of final arguments, learned Counsel for Defendant submitted that Plaintiff has not filed any documents on record to show that amount of Rs. 5 Lakh was deposited by the Plaintiff.
11. Learned Counsel for Plaintiff argued that the ticketing agreement dated 07.12.2016 was executed between the Plaintiff, referred to as 'Paytm' in the said agreement and M/s Sharada Talkies, a sole proprietor firm through its Sole proprietor R Santosh, referred to as 'Merchant' in the said agreement and that the Plaintiff was approached by the Merchant for the promotions and marketing and listing of its ticket inventory on the Paytm marketplace and agreed to provide the digital content and such other information for listing the same on the Paytm marketplace on the terms and conditions mentioned in the ticketing agreement dated 07.12.2016.
NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2024.11.25 16:42:55 +0530 CS (Comm) 422/23 One97 Communications Ltd. Vs. R. Santhosh Page 12 of 19
12. He also stated that Addendum no. 1 was executed to the ticketing agreement dated 07.12.2016 on 04.01.2017(written as 4th day of January 2016, which appears to be an inadvertent error). By the said addendum, sub clause 6 with title 'Security Deposit' was added under schedule B in the Principal Agreement i.e. ticketing agreement dated 07.12.2016 to read as under:
"Security Deposit: "Paytm shall pay an interest free refundable security deposit to the merchant amount of INR 5,00,000/-(Rupees Five lakhs Only). Merchant agrees and acknowledge that under no circumstances, the security deposit shall be deducted/withhold/set off during the term of the Principal Agreement. The said security deposit will be refunded by the merchant to Paytm within seven days of the termination of this agreement."
13. Learned Counsel for Plaintiff had drawn attention to the fact that the signatory of Principal Agreement i.e. ticketing agreement dated 07.12.2016 as well as Addendum No. 1 on behalf of Merchant was R Santhosh i.e. the Defendant, for Sharada Talkies.
14. It has been argued on behalf of Plaintiff that as per clause 4 of the ticketing agreement dated 07.12.2016, the Defendant was contractually obligated to provide/update and upload the ticket inventory and fix rates of ticket booking in respect of its theater along with any and all additional services ought to be availed by customers at the theater of Defendant. The cinema theater of the Defendant was operational up till April 2022. Learned Counsel for Plaintiff argued that the Defendant abruptly seized operations without any prior notice or ascribing any reason to the NEERA Plaintiff. When the theater operations were not resumed despite multiple BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (Comm) 422/23 One97 Communications Ltd. Vs. R. Santhosh Page 13 of 19 Date: 2024.11.25 16:43:03 +0530 requests, the intention of the Defendant became clear to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff terminated the ticketing agreement dated 07.12.2016 as well as addendum agreement dated 04.01.2017 vide its legal notice dated 13.12.2022. The Plaintiff called upon the Defendant to return the security deposit within seven days of receipt of the legal notice of the Plaintiff dated 13.12.2022.
15. Learned Counsel for Plaintiff submitted that the Defendant has taken an objection that the Plaintiff has not filed any document to show the transfer of Rs.5,00,000/-by the Plaintiff to the account of Defendant. He invited attention to the statement of account filed with the plaint which was exhibited as Ex. PW-1/4 which clearly reflects the transactions between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and reflects an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards security having been deposited in the account of Sharda Talkies on 27.01.2017. Learned Counsel for Plaintiff also submitted that same submissions were made by the Plaintiff in its legal notice dated 13.12.2022 sent to the Defendant seeking refund of the security deposit but the Defendant opted not to reply to the said legal notice. He argued that the defence of the Defendant stands closed and the suit deserves to be decreed.
16. Learned Counsel for Defendant submitted that the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties and the Plaintiff was in knowledge that the Defendant has no liability towards the Plaintiff and that the Plaintiff should have impleaded Manjunath Gowda as the alleged ticketing NEERA BHARIHOKE agreement dated 07.12.2016 was a product of manipulation done by Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2024.11.25 16:43:12 +0530 CS (Comm) 422/23 One97 Communications Ltd. Vs. R. Santhosh Page 14 of 19 Manjunath Gowda, the co-lessee in connivance with the Plaintiff. Reliance was placed by the Defendant on the submissions made by Defendant in his application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. He also argued that the Plaintiff has not placed anything on record to show that any amount towards security deposit was transferred to account of Defendant. He also argued that the ticketing agreement dated 07.12.2016 contained an arbitration clause and therefore the present suit is not maintainable.
17. In rebuttal, learned Counsel for Plaintiff argued that the submissions made by learned Counsel for Defendant is devoid of merits and even otherwise, the defence of the Defendant stands closed and the submissions made on behalf of Defendant can therefore not be taken into consideration.
FINDINGS
18. Arguments heard. Record perused carefully.
19. The suit has been filed against R. Santhosh in the capacity of proprietor of M/s Sharada Talkies. The ticketing agreement dated 07.12.2016 as well as Addendum Agreement dated 04.01.2017 bears the signatures of R. Santhosh in the capacity of proprietor of M/s Sharada Talkies. Under the provisions of CPC also, the suit against the proprietorship is filed in the name of the proprietor. NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2024.11.25 16:43:21 +0530 CS (Comm) 422/23 One97 Communications Ltd. Vs. R. Santhosh Page 15 of 19
20. There is no reference to name of any Manjunath Gowda in the ticketing agreement dated 07.12.2016 as well as Addendum Agreement dated 04.01.2017. The reference to name of Manjunath and Santosh R. is found as purchasers of e-Stamp for 'Lease Agreement for Exhibition of Cinematography Films at Sharada Talkies, Bangaluru'. However, the present suit has not been filed for seeking any relief under the said lease agreement. Therefore, there is no merit in the submissions of learned Counsel for Defendant that the present suit is bad for misjoinder of parties.
21. The Defendant has taken an objection that the Plaintiff has not filed any document on record to show the transfer of security deposit of Rs.5 Lakhs to the account of Defendant. The said objection is devoid of merits since the amount has been transferred in the name of Santosh Talkies as reflected in Ex.PW-1/4, i.e. Statement of Account and transfer to the account of Santosh Talkies is transfer to R. Santhosh in the capacity of proprietor of Santosh Talkies. The Plaintiff has also filed e-mails dated 14.04.2020 and 19.04.2020, Ex. PW-1/5 (Collectively) which reflect that tenure of the agreement was also extended by the Defendant as per mail dated 19.04.2020. Further Ex.PW-1/4, i.e. Statement of Account, reflects not only the payment of security deposit but also payments towards Net convenience fees and entertainment convenience Fees for the period from 27.03.2017 to 21.07.2017. Therefore, the Plaintiff has proved that the security deposit of Rs.5 Lakhs was made by the Plaintiff to the Defendant. NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2024.11.25 16:43:27 +0530 CS (Comm) 422/23 One97 Communications Ltd. Vs. R. Santhosh Page 16 of 19
22. As regards there being an arbitration clause between the parties under the ticketing agreement dated 07.12.2016, the same is not sustainable as the same ground was taken by the Defendant in its application filed under Order VII Rule 11CPC which was dismissed vide order dated 08.10.2024 and since the said order has not been challenged, the same has attained finality. Further it is noticed that on one hand, the Defendant is denying its liability under the ticketing agreement dated 07.12.2016 by alleging that the same has been manipulated by Manjunath Gowda, on the other hand, the Defendant is relying on the terms of the same agreement by referring to the arbitration clause in the said agreement.
23. In view of these observations, it is noticed that the Defendant has not been able to prove any of the legal grounds taken by the Defendant in response to the claim of the Plaintiff.
24. Plaintiff terminated the ticketing agreement dated 07.12.2016 as well as addendum agreement dated 04.01.2017 vide its legal notice dated 13.12.2022. The Plaintiff called upon the Defendant to return the security deposit within seven days of receipt of the legal notice of the Plaintiff dated 13.12.2022 and the present suit has been filed in 2023 and is, therefore, within limitation.
25. The suit of the Plaintiff is based upon the documents placed on record as Ex. PW-1/1 to Ex.PW-1/6. The testimony of PW-1 has been duly corroborated by the other documents placed on record. There is no NEERA occasion to doubt the veracity of the said witness and for that matter, the BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (Comm) 422/23 One97 Communications Ltd. Vs. R. Santhosh Page 17 of 19 Date: 2024.11.25 16:43:37 +0530 authenticity of testimony led by him. The testimony has gone unrebutted and unchallenged as Defendant did not cross examine PW-1 despite being given two opportunities. This court finds no reason to disbelieve the on- oath testimony of the Plaintiff coupled with the relevant documents. Hence, the Plaintiff has successfully proved its case by preponderance of probability.
RELIEF
26. Accordingly, the present case is decreed in favour of Plaintiff and against the Defendant for the sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. Plaintiff has prayed for pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum. However, it is necessary to assess the reasonableness of this claimed rate of interest in the light of the legal principles governing the award of interest under Section 34 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In the landmark judgment of Central Bank of India vs. Ravindra & Ors., AIR 2001 SC 3095, Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down important guidelines regarding the award of interest. It was held that the discretion to award interest should be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. The purpose of interest is to compensate the Plaintiff for the delay in receiving payment and not to penalise the Defendants. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also emphasized that the rate of interest should be reasonable, reflecting the prevailing commercial rates and market condition. This court is of the firm view that pendente lite and future interest @ 8% per annum will serve the ends of justice. NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2024.11.25 16:43:45 +0530 CS (Comm) 422/23 One97 Communications Ltd. Vs. R. Santhosh Page 18 of 19
27. The Defendant is directed to pay to Plaintiff a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- alongwith pendente lite and future interest 8% per annum. Defendant is also directed to pay to Plaintiff the cost of the suit which shall include pleader's fee and the other costs on the scale provided under section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure as substituted by Commercial Courts Act. If the payment is not made within thirty days, the cost shall carry simple interest @ 6% per annum.
28. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Digitally
signed by
NEERA
NEERA BHARIHOKE
BHARIHOKE Date:
Announced in the open 2024.11.25
16:43:52
Court on 25.11.2024 +0530
(Dr. Neera Bharihoke)
District Judge (Comm. Court)-06
South East, Saket, New Delhi
25.11.2024
Certified that this judgment contains 19 pages and each page bears my signatures. Digitally signed by NEERA NEERA BHARIHOKE BHARIHOKE Date:
2024.11.25 16:44:00 +0530 (Dr. Neera Bharihoke) District Judge (Comm. Court)-06 South East, Saket, New Delhi 25.11.2024 CS (Comm) 422/23 One97 Communications Ltd. Vs. R. Santhosh Page 19 of 19