Delhi District Court
M/S Modi Infosol Pvt. Ltd vs M/S Apex Distributors on 21 August, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEELAM SINGH
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL)-02, SOUTH EAST
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS(COMM)-872/22
In the matter of:
M/s Modi Infosol Pvt Ltd.
Through its Director
Having its corporate office at:
D-168, 2nd Floor, Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase-I, New Delhi-110020 .....Plaintiff
Versus
1. M/s Apex Distributors
Through its Partner
Off: Shop No.3, Ashita Comer
186/187/3, Gold Finch Peth
Solapur-413007, Maharashtra
2. Mr. Girish Pamnani, Partner
M/s Apex Distributors
Off: Shop No.3, Ashita Comer
186/187/3, Gold Finch Peth
Solapur-413007, Maharashtra
3. Pradeep Pamnani, Partner
M/s Apex Distributors
Off: Shop No.3, Ashita Comer
186/187/3, Gold Finch Peth
Solapur-413007, Maharashtra ...... Defendants
Date of Institution of suit : 30.08.2022
Date of Reserving of judgment : 21.08.2024
Date of Judgment : 21.08.2024
Final Decision : Decreed
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit for recovery has been filed by the plaintiff CS(COMM) 872/22 M/s Modi Infosol Pvt Ltd. Vs. M/s Apex Distributors & Ors. Page 1 of 6 for sum of Rs. 5,84,630/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Eighty Four Thousand Six Hundred and Thirty Only) against the defendants. 2.1 Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff company is a customer oriented technology aware IT solution Provider which provides a range of IT products & Mobile Accessories and expert services to create competitive advantage. Plaintiff company also deals with the Software, PCs, Laptops/desktops, Servers, Printers, Multi-function Machines/Photo Copiers, Video projection system, Storage and networking products to develop customized IT Solution, mobile and mobile accessories for all sorts of customer needs and Sh. Shyam Sunder Modi has been duly authorized to contest the present suit on behalf of plaintiff. 2.2 That defendant no.1 is a partnership firm and defendant no.2 & 3 are responsible for management of its day to day affairs and jointly and severally liable for its liabilities. That the defendant no.1 through its partners defendant no.2 & 3 had approached the plaintiff for supply of various Asus Make monitors and Asus make desktop on their respective agreed price list in the month of June 2015. That the plaintiff company had made due and timely supply of all orders placed by defendants which were duly received by defendants and there was no complaint in that regard till date.
2.3 That the defendant had purchased goods from the plaintiff through various orders on running account basis which was agreed to be kept open and running till the dealings are settled between the parties. That the defendants had defaulted in paying for goods received under various invoices. That as per statement of account, CS(COMM) 872/22 M/s Modi Infosol Pvt Ltd. Vs. M/s Apex Distributors & Ors. Page 2 of 6 an amount of Rs.5,84,630/- is due and outstanding against the defendant.
2.4 That the defendants after continuous requests made part payment on 15.05.2021 for a sum of Rs.6292/- to the plaintiff and thereafter stopped making any payment in the running account. That the plaintiff served defendant various personal messages and also requested various times for the payment of amount due but everything went into vain. Hence, the present suit.
3. Summons of the suit were ordered to be issued upon the defendants through all modes on 30.08.2022. However, defendants were duly served through email on 17.02.2024. Despite being served, neither defendants had appeared in the court nor filed their WS. Hence, on 18.07.2024, the right of the defendants to file the WS was closed and they were also proceeded exparte by this court. Plaintiff in order to substantiate its claim has filed ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit and examined Sh. Shyam Sunder Modi as PW-1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and proved the following documents:-
1. Board resolution is Ex. PW1/1.
2. The computer generated invoices raised by the plaintiff company are Ex. PW1/2 (Colly.).
3. Certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is Ex.PW1/4.
4. Copy of the legal notice dated 26.05.2022 alongwith receipts and printout of delivery of whats-app is Ex. PW1/5 (Colly).
However, on the day of recording of evidence Ld. Counsel CS(COMM) 872/22 M/s Modi Infosol Pvt Ltd. Vs. M/s Apex Distributors & Ors. Page 3 of 6 for defendant no.1 had appeared and he has given an opportunity to cross examine the witness on legal point and he has cross examined the witness.
4. In order to adjudicate upon the suit, I have heard Ld. Counsel for plaintiff. During the hearing, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff had submitted that the case of the plaintiff stands duly proved by virtue of the unchallenged testimony of AR of plaintiff company Sh. Shyam Sunder Modi and therefore, plaintiff should be granted the decree, as prayed for.
5. After perusing the record of the Court file and considering the submissions of Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff, I find that the suit of the plaintiff has been filed on 30.08.2022 and is within the prescribed period of limitation. Further, I find that this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the present suit as plaintiff company has its corporate office at Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi and cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. I have fortified my view with the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in 'Auto Movers Vs. Luminous Power Technologies Pvt. Ltd., (2021) SCC Online Delhi 4387.
6.1 PW-1 has categorically deposed that defendant no.1 is a partnership firm and defendant no.2 & 3 are responsible for management of its day to day affairs and jointly and severally liable for its liabilities. That the defendant no.1 through its partners defendant no.2 & 3 had approached the plaintiff for supply of various Asus Make monitors and Asus make desktop on their respective agreed price list in the month of June 2015. That CS(COMM) 872/22 M/s Modi Infosol Pvt Ltd. Vs. M/s Apex Distributors & Ors. Page 4 of 6 the plaintiff company had made due and timely supply of all orders placed by defendants which were duly received by defendants and there was no complaint in that regard till date. 6.2 That the defendant had purchased goods from the plaintiff through various orders on running account basis which was agreed to be kept open and running till the dealings are settled between the parties. That the defendants had defaulted in paying for goods received under various invoices. That as per statement of account, an amount of Rs.5,84,630/- is due and outstanding against the defendant. That the defendants after continuous requests made part payment on 15.05.2021 for a sum of Rs.6292/- to the plaintiff and thereafter stopped making any payment in the running account. That the plaintiff served defendant various personal messages and also requested various times for the payment of amount due but everything went into vain. The testimony of PW-1 has gone unrebuttal and uncontroverted without any challenge as Defendant has chosen not to appear or contest the suit. As far as liability of defendant is concerned the same stands proved in view of the unrebuttal testimony of the PW-1.
7. As regards the rate of interest claimed by the Plaintiff is concerned, I am of the considered opinion that as per the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra AIR 2001, Supreme Court 3095, the grant of pendente- lite and future interest is a subject matter of the discretion of the Court and not to be governed by the agreement between the parties. Accordingly in exercise of the discretionary power of this Court, I have granted pendente-lite and future interest at the rate CS(COMM) 872/22 M/s Modi Infosol Pvt Ltd. Vs. M/s Apex Distributors & Ors. Page 5 of 6 of 6% p.a. to the Plaintiff because Section 34 of CPC, 1908 as well as the provisions of the Interest Act, 1978, contemplate grant of interest at the rate of 6% per annum and because in the past decade, the nationalized banks have also granted interest at the rate of 5-6% per annum, on terms deposits.
8. Thus, as a net result of the aforesaid, the suit of the Plaintiff is decreed for an amount of Rs. 5,84,630/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Eighty Four Thousand Six Hundred and Thirty Only) along with the interest pendente-lite and future interest @ 6% p.a. till its realization.
9. The Suit of the Plaintiff is decreed accordingly.
10. Decree sheet be drawn by the Reader of this Court and file be consigned to Record Room. Digitally signed by NEELAM NEELAM SINGH Date:
SINGH 2024.08.21 16:25:54 +0530 Announced & dictated in the open Court on this 21st August, 2024 (NEELAM SINGH) District Judge (Commercial Court-02) South-East, Saket Courts, ND 21.08.2024 jm CS(COMM) 872/22 M/s Modi Infosol Pvt Ltd. Vs. M/s Apex Distributors & Ors. Page 6 of 6 CS(COMM) 872/22 M/s Modi Infosol Pvt Ltd. Vs. M/s Apex Distributors & Ors. Page 7 of 6 CS(COMM) 872/22 M/s Modi Infosol Pvt Ltd. Vs. M/s Apex Distributors & Ors. Page 8 of 6