Bangalore District Court
M/S Hughes Communications vs Sri. Ravi Kiran Shastri on 17 October, 2015
IN THE COURT OF XVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (C.C.H.16)
Present: Sri. Ravindra Hegde,
M.A., LL.M.
XVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge.
Dated this 17th Day of October 2015
O.S.No. 8397/2012
Plaintiff : M/s Hughes Communications
India Ltd.,
Having its Registered Office at:
No.1, Westend Greens,
Shivaji Marg, NH-8,
New Delhi
Also having its office at:
No.18/10, 2nd Floor,
Saleh Center, Cunningham Road,
Next to 'Sigma Mall',
Bengaluru - 48.
[By Sri. Bharath Kumar V., Adv.]
-Vs-
Defendant : Sri. Ravi Kiran Shastri
S/o Not known to the plaintiff
Aged Major,
R/at No.442, Raghava Reddy
Building, 3rd Cross Road,
Hoodi, Bengaluru - 48.
[Exparte]
Date of institution of the suit 26.11.2012
Nature of the suit Money Suit
2 OS.No.8397/2012
Date of commencement of 10.09.2014
recording the evidence
Date on which the judgment 17.10.2015
was pronounced
Total duration Years Months Days
02 10 21
(Ravindra Hegde),
XVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge.
********
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of Rs.63,46,205/- [Rupees Sixty Three Lakhs Forty Six Thousand Two Hundred Five only] along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of suit till realization of the entire amount and also for costs
2. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case is that, the plaintiff is a limited company and is carrying on the business of supplying and servicing various satellite communication devises and is having international reputation for their impeachable business standards and is represented by its authorized representative. The defendant was employee of the plaintiff company Bengaluru office and was inducted on 8.8.2009 to the post of Senior Assistant/Administration. The primary duties of 3 OS.No.8397/2012 the defendant included supervising over the administrative tasks at the plaintiff's Bengaluru office. He was not authorized to take any procurement related decisions on behalf of the plaintiff. Procurement of stationery aNd other miscellaneous materials to the plaintiff company, were done in accordance with the standard operating procedure through the head office. The quotation and purchase orders were generated through the plaintiff's head office through the software called 'SAP'. The defendant was not having access to the said software and it was restricted to few authorized people only. The purchase orders are electronically generated. In the month of June, 2012, the plaintiff learnt that the defendant has indulged in illegal and unlawful activities beyond his job profile and he has started to forge and fabricate various important documents of the plaintiff company like purchase orders, seals, e-mail id, business cards etc., for his personal gain and he was placing purchase orders to number of vendors for stationery items and miscellaneous goods like printer cartridges. The defendant with dishonest intention, has mislead the vendors to wrongly believe that the purchases were made on behalf of the plaintiff company, by sending e-mails purporting to have been sent on behalf of the 4 OS.No.8397/2012 plaintiff company from the plaintiff's e-mail id without the plaintiff's knowledge and consent. In gross violation of the standing operating procedure of the plaintiff, the defendant had procured materials from the vendors and had utilized the same to make his personal gain. The defendant with dishonest intention had knowingly used the said forged documents and procured stationery and miscellaneous goods worth Rs.63,46,205/-. He has acted beyond the scope of his employment and job profile and on the basis of the fraudulent representation made by the defendant, various persons were induced and they agreed to deliver the goods to the defendant believing that the same were required by the plaintiff. The defendant has issued the forged purchase orders to cheat various people and harm the plaintiff's reputation. The plaintiff came to know about this in June, 2012 when the defendant was on leave and persons started to make enquiry of outstanding payments with the plaintiff company. Thereafter, the plaintiff conducted detail internal enquiry and found out the fault and forgery committed by the defendant. Thereafter, the plaintiff company terminated the services of the defendant and gave complaint against the defendant in Highground Police Station 5 OS.No.8397/2012 and they have registered the FIR No.0189/2012 dated 19.7.2012 against the defendant under various sections of IPC. Thereafter, the plaintiff company to safeguard its impeachable and marketable reputation, was constrained to settle the outstanding dues of various vendors for the supply of stationery and miscellaneous items, which was to the tune of Rs.63,46,205/- and the plaintiff company has suffered a loss of this amount on account of illegal acts of omission and commission of the defendant. Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff. For recovery of this amount along with interest at the rate of 18%, the plaintiff has filed this suit.
3. The defendant remained absent in spite of paper publication and is placed exparte.
4. Now, the points that arise for my consideration are:-
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the plaintiff has suffered loss of Rs.63,46,205/-
on account of the illegal acts of omission and commission by the defendant?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.63,46,205/- along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of suit till realization of the entire amount from the defendant?
3) What order or decree?
6 OS.No.8397/2012
5. In support of the plaintiff's case, PW.1 to 3 are examined. Ex.P1 to P62 are marked.
6. Heard the arguments.
7. My answer to the above points are as under:-
Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: In the Affirmative Point No.3: As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
8. Point Nos.1 and 2:- Both these issues are taken together for discussion to avoid repetition.
9. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant was an employee in the plaintiff's company as Senior Assistant/Administrative and he was not permitted to take any procurement related decisions which was to be done from the head office only. According to the plaintiff, the defendant has fraudulently placed purchase orders to number of vendors and forged purchase orders, seals, e-mail id, business cards etc., for his personal gain and it came to the knowledge of the plaintiff in June, 2012 and thereafter, on internal enquiry, the plaintiff found that the defendant has done forgery and fraud and then 7 OS.No.8397/2012 terminated his services and also gave a complaint against him and FIR is registered by the Highground Police station on 19.7.2012. The plaintiff has also stated that, as the defendant had placed purchase orders and had received many stationery and other goods like printer cartridges from various persons in the name of the plaintiff company, to maintain its goods reputation, the plaintiff has compensated all those persons and settled the outstanding dues of various vendors for the supply of stationery and miscellaneous items, which was to the tune of Rs.63,46,205/- and entered into settlement agreement with all of them and payments have been made by the plaintiff to those persons through cheque. This amount comes to Rs.63,46,205/- and as this is monitory loss caused by the defendant to the plaintiff company, the plaintiff has sought for recovery of this amount from the defendant with interest. The defendant has remained exparte.
10. The plaintiff has examined PW.1 to 3 who have stated the averments and how the fraud and forgery committed by the defendant and also loss caused to the plaintiff company by the defendant. They have also stated about the settlement made by the plaintiff with various persons to keep up its 8 OS.No.8397/2012 reputation, in respect of the purchase made by the defendant in the name of the plaintiff. As the defendant is exparte, there is no cross-examination of PW.1 to 3. The plaintiff has produced the original purchase order as Ex.P1 which according to the plaintiff is the regular purchase order issued by the company. This is produced to show as a sample. The plaintiff has produced the copy of the SOP as Ex.P2. The certificate given by PW.3 regarding the defendant's e-mails taken under his instructions as Ex.P3. Ex.P4 to P62 are the various settlement agreements entered into by the plaintiff with different persons with whom the defendant had placed purchase orders and had received the goods in the name of the plaintiff and had not made the payments and cheated the plaintiff and those vendors. The plaintiff has made payment as per the settlement agreement for the purchase orders alleged to have been placed by the defendant alleged to be acting on behalf of the HCIL i.e., plaintiff. It is mentioned in the agreement that the defendant though was not empowered to place purchase orders on behalf of the company or procure the goods and as it was not in his scope of employment, he had acted beyond the scope of his employment and has cheated and committed fraud to both the 9 OS.No.8397/2012 plaintiff and the also the claimant for his personal gain and the purchased goods never came to the stock of the plaintiff company and that complaint also lodged with the police etc., and the plaintiff has paid the amount to those claimants as per these agreements. With this agreement, undertaking given by those persons to cooperate in the police investigation and also the copies of the cheques through which the payments have been made and the credit bills received by the defendant etc., and also mails sent by the defendant in the name of the plaintiff company are all produced. The total payment made by the plaintiff as settlement comes to Rs.63,46,205/-. For recovery of this amount, the plaintiff has filed the suit.
11. As stated above, the defendant is exparte and has not disputed the claim of the plaintiff. The documents produced and uncontested evidence of PW.1 to 3 show that the defendant was employed in the plaintiff company and has cheated the plaintiff and also many persons and has forged the documents in the name of the plaintiff and has given several orders and purchased the goods on credit basis in the name of the plaintiff and has caused loss and even complaint has been given against him and the case has been registered by the police. The 10 OS.No.8397/2012 defendant has remained exparte and has not denied the claim of the plaintiff. Ex.P4 to P62 show that the plaintiff has paid Rs.63,46,205/- to various persons with whom the defendant had fraudulently given purchase orders in the name of the plaintiff even without having any authority and the goods purchased by the defendant are also stated to have not been received by the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the monitory loss which is caused to the plaintiff from the defendant. The total loss caused to the plaintiff is Rs.63,46,205/- as this is the amount paid by the plaintiff to various persons with whom the defendant had fraudulent transactions. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to recover this amount from the defendant. The plaintiff is also entitled for the interest at the rate of 18% p.a. as prayed. The entire claim of the plaintiff is not disputed by the defendant by appearing before the court. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim amount and also interest. Accordingly, these points are answered in the affirmative.
12. Point No.3:- For the discussion made above, the suit is to be decreed with costs. Accordingly, following order is passed :-
11 OS.No.8397/2012
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs.
The defendant is liable and is directed to pay Rs.63,46,205/- [Rupees Sixty Three Lakhs Forty Six Thousand Two Hundred Five only] with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of suit till realization of the entire amount with costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the judgment writer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 17th day of October, 2015).
(Ravindra Hegde), XVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for plaintiff:
P.W.1 S.U.Bopanna PW.2 Kuhu Adhikary PW.3 R.Subramanian
List of documents exhibited for plaintiff:
Ex.P1 Sample Purchase order Ex.P2 Copy of SOP 12 OS.No.8397/2012 Ex.P3 Certificate u/s 65(b) of Evidence Act Ex.P4 File of M/s Chordia Enterprises Ex.P5 File of M/s Triangle Enterprises Ex.P6 File of M/s Vinayak Enterprises Ex.P7 File of M/s Kajaria Ex.P8 File of M/s A & C Computers Ex.P9 File of M/s Artha Tech Solutions Ex.P10 File of M/s Bhoomi Technologies Ex.P11 File of M/s Nishitha Infotech Ex.P12 File of M/s Virue Info Services
Ex.P13 File of M/s Media Office solutions Ex.P14 File of M/s Shree Computers Ex.P15 File of M/s Mach Computers Ex.P16 File of M/s Spectrum Solutions Ex.P17 File of M/s Confident Office automation Ex.P18 File of M/s Sree Durga Computers Ex.P19 File of M/s Peritech Systems Corporation Ex.P20 File of M/s Blue Nile Stationery Ex.P21 File of M/s Ashwath Computers Ex.P22 File of M/s I-lead solutions Ex.P23 File of M/s A.V.Technologies Ex.P24 File of M/s Aster Infosystems TVS Ex.P25 File of M/s Globe Enterprises Ex.P26 File of M/s Marcellus Infotech Ex.P27 File of M/s Expert Systems Ex.P28 File of M/s Jey Pee Agencies Ex.P29 File of M/s Kukreja Electronics Solutions Pvt. Ltd.13 OS.No.8397/2012
Ex.P30 File of M/s Sun Systems Ex.P31 File of M/s Sagar Office Automation Ex.P32 File of M/s Pragathi Computers Ex.P33 File of M/s Mentor Ex.P34 File of M/s Golchha Inter-Trade Ex.P35 File of M/s Ravi Auto Xerox Ex.P36 File of M/s Anu Infoway Ex.P37 File of M/s Spanco Technologies Ex.P38 File of M/s ICOM Peripherals Ex.P39 File of M/s Ankta Computers Ex.P40 File of M/s Gami Solutions Ex.P41 File of M/s Amrutha Computers Ex.P42 File of M/s Harpith Consumables point Ex.P43 File of M/s Sunrise Office Solutions Ex.P44 File of M/s Printech Corporation Ex.P45 File of M/s Yarok Ex.P46 File of M/s Aroor Infotech Ex.P47 File of M/s Winmax Technology Ex.P48 File of M/s STI Infotech Computers Ex.P49 File of M/s City Stationers Ex.P50 File of M/s Gement Info Systems Ex.P51 File of M/s CTIS Innovative Info Systems Ex.P52 File of M/s Sigma Office Solutions Ex.P53 File of M/s White Field Stationers Ex.P54 File of M/s Pinnacte Infotech Ex.P55 File of M/s A to Z Computers Ex.P56 File of M/s CNS Infotech 14 OS.No.8397/2012 Ex.P57 File of M/s Value point Ex.P58 File of M/s SPAN Sales International Ex.P59 File of M/s Excel Infotech Ex.P60 File of M/s Mark Computer Services Ex.P61 File of M/s Pramukh Enterprises Ex.P62 File of M/s Sumukha Infotech List of witnesses examined for defendant:
Nil List of documents exhibited for defendant:
Nil XVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.15 OS.No.8397/2012
(Order pronounced in open court vide separate judgment) ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs. The defendant is liable and is directed to pay Rs.63,46,205/- [Rupees Sixty Three Lakhs Forty Six Thousand Two Hundred Five only] with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of suit till realization of the entire amount with costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
XVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.