Delhi District Court
M/S. Scj Plastics Ltd vs M/S. Shakti Plas Industries on 5 September, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. M.P. SINGH: ACJ/CCJ/ARC(SE), SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
CS No. 241/13
Unique case ID No. 02406C0111272013
M/s. SCJ Plastics Ltd.
F3/1011, Okhla Industrial Area PhaseI,
New Delhi 110020 ......... Plaintiff
Vs.
M/s. Shakti Plas Industries
Plot No.1, Phase2,
Badli Industrial Area
Delhi - 110042 ............ Defendant
Date of Institution : 01.05.2013
Arguments heard on : 31.08.2013
Date of Pronouncement : 05.09.2013
JUDGMENT
(1) This is a suit under order XXXVII of CPC. Defendant, a partnership firm, has been regularly purchasing master batches from the plaintiff, to its satisfaction and requirements. It is averred that the defendant has a running account with the plaintiff. On 17th March, 2010 vide invoice no. 6406, defendant purchased master batches worth Rs. 2,09,967/ from the plaintiff on credit of 45 days i.e. payment was to be made by 01.05.2010. As per the invoice, the interest chargeable in case of delayed payment was 24% per annum. It is averred that as on date qua the aforesaid invoice, an amount of Rs. 79,327/ is still due and payable by the defendant. On this amount the plaintiff has also claimed an amount of Rs. 38,286/, being 24% per annum interest from the date of outstanding payment till date of filing of the case. Thus, as against the aforesaid M/s. SCJ Plastics Ltd. vs. M/s. Shakti Plas Industries Page 1 / 5 invoice bearing no. 6406, the plaintiff has claimed an amount of Rs. 1,17,613/ (Rs. 79,327/ + Rs. 38,286/ = Rs. 1,17,613/).
(2) Besides the aforesaid invoice, the defendant had also purchased master batches from the plaintiff vide the following invoices, subject to issuance of Sales Tax Form 'C', failing which as per Sales Tax Rules and law laid down by the Court, defendant was liable to pay to the plaintiff additional sales tax @ 2% per annum and also penalty @ 18% per annum:
Invoice no. Date Amount (in Rs.)
10 02.04.2009 28,154/
532 29.04.2009 95,245/
1401 16.06.2009 96,053/
2618 19.08.2009 24,013/
2865 01.09.2009 1,82,499/
Total - Rs. 4,25,964/
(3) It is averred that the defendant has not issued Sales Tax Form 'C' in
respect of the invoices mentioned in the preceding paragraph, despite repeated demands. Defendant thus claims an amount of Rs. 8,519/, being 2% per annum interest on the amount of Rs. 4,25,964/. The Plaintiff also claims an amount of Rs. 5,718/, being penalty on the additional sales tax @ 18% per annum from the date of said invoices till the date of filing of the case.
(4) Summons for appearance under Order XXXVII CPC was issued. On 27.06.2013 the court process server visited the address of the defendant and met a lady, the manager of the defendant firm, who did not reveal her name and informed that 'owner' of the firm was away. She did not take the summons. M/s. SCJ Plastics Ltd. vs. M/s. Shakti Plas Industries Page 2 / 5 Thereafter summons for appearance was once again issued with directions to the process server to affix the same at the defendant's premises in case of refusal, or the defendant not being found, or the premises being locked. The process server visited the defendant's premises on 23.07.2013 and met a lady who represented herself to be the maid and told that 'sahab' was not present. Nobody at the aforesaid premises of the defendant took the summons. Thereafter, the process server affixed the summons at the given address of the defendant. The defendant thus stands served with the summons for appearance under Order XXXVII CPC by way of affixation on 23.07.2013.. Till date defendant has not filed any application entering appearance. In terms of provisions of Order XXXVII Rule 2 (3) of CPC, as the defendant has not entered appearance, the allegations made in the plaint are deemed to be admitted by it and the plaintiff is entitled to a decree not exceeding the sum mentioned in the summons together with interest at rate specified up to the date of decree and the costs.
(5) I have arguments at Bar and perused the record of the case. (6) It is no longer res integra that invoices/bills are 'written contracts' within the contemplation of Order XXXVII CPC. Reference can be made to the decisions of M/s Punjab Pen House Vs. Samrat Bicycle Ltd. AIR 1992 Del 1, Corporate Voice (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Uniroll Leather India Ltd. (1995) 60 DLT 321, Beacon Electronics Vs. Sylvania & Laxman Ltd. 1998(3) AD (Delhi) 141 and M/s KIG Systel Ltd. Vs. M/s Fujitsu ICIM Ltd., AIR 2001 Del 357. (7) The plaintiff's claim to the principal sum of Rs. 79,327/ visavis the invoice no. 6406 is within period of limitation. The amount in respect of this invoice was to be paid on credit of 15 days i.e. it was to be paid by 01.05.2010. M/s. SCJ Plastics Ltd. vs. M/s. Shakti Plas Industries Page 3 / 5 Cause of action therefore first accrued on 02.05.2010. This suit has been filed on 01.05.2013 which is within time as per Article 15 of Limitation Act. Even otherwise, it appears from the record that in May 2011 and January 2012, the defendant had made party payments of Rs. 60,000/ and Rs. 40,000/ respectively by way of cheques. Therefore, it is clear that the claim of the plaintiff in respect of the invoice is within time. The plaintiff is entitled to this principal sum of Rs. 79,327/.
(8) The plaintiff states that in respect of five invoices pertaining to the year 2009, details of which have been mentioned hereinabove, he is entitled to an amount of Rs. 8,519/, being 2% additional sales tax under Sales Tax Rules and the law laid down by the Court. He states that the defendant is liable to pay this amount as it has not issued Sales Tax Form 'C'. Besides this, he also claims 18% penalty on the additional sales tax amounting Rs. 5,718/. It is my view that the plaintiff is not entitled to these two claims for the following reasons. These claims pertain to the year 2009. The suit has been filed on 01.05.2013. Therefore, it is clear that these claims have been made after the period of three years. It was also urged that the plaintiff has been maintaining a running account of the defendant in its books of accounts and as such these two claims are within limitation. The plaintiff has placed on record statement of accounts running into two pages which incorporate eight entries only. These claims do not at all find a mention in the statement of account filed in the court. Therefore, the case for these two claims on the basis of running account is not justified. It was additionally urged that under the Sales Tax Rules and the law laid down by the court, the plaintiff is entitled to these claims. However, the specific Rules on M/s. SCJ Plastics Ltd. vs. M/s. Shakti Plas Industries Page 4 / 5 which plaintiff is placing reliance has not been brought to the notice of the court. Neither has any such law laid down by the court in this context brought to the notice of this court. Accordingly, for these multiple reasons, the claim of the plaintiff to amounts of Rs. 8,519/ and Rs. 5,718/ has to be turned down. (9) Interest The plaintiff has claimed past, pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 24% per annum. It is clear the transaction in question is a commercial one. The invoices clearly state that interest @ 24% per annum would be charged in case of delayed payment. The plaintiff is therefore entitled to interest @ 24% per annum. As per Order XXXVII Rule 2 (3) CPC, plaintiff is entitled to interest up to the date of decree.
(10) Accordingly, the suit is hereby decreed for a sum of Rs. 79,327/ (Rupees seventy nine thousand three hundred and twenty seven only) in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant firm along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from 02.05.2010 till the date of decree. Cost of the suit is also awarded to the plaintiff. The suit stands disposed off accordingly. Decree sheet be prepared. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on 05.09.2013. (M. P. Singh) ACJ/CCJ/ARC(SE) Saket Court, New Delhi M/s. SCJ Plastics Ltd. vs. M/s. Shakti Plas Industries Page 5 / 5