Delhi District Court
M/S. Ntt Communications India Private ... vs Mr. Manoj Barua on 23 August, 2014
//1//
IN THE COURT OF SHRI LALIT KUMAR : ADJ 01: SOUTH EAST :
SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
CS354/13
M/s. NTT Communications India Private Limited
Registered Office At:
Shop No. 110, 44/F9,
Kishangarh, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi110070
.......Plaintiff
Versus
Mr. Manoj Barua, Proprietor
M/s E2E Network Solutions
1646/15, Govindpuri
Kalkaji, New Delhi 110019
Through its Managing Partner
Also At:
A85,2nd Floor,
Okhla Industrial Area Phase II
New Delhi 110020
..... Defendant
Date of institution of case : 14.03.2013
Date of Reserving order : 14.08.2014
Date of Order : 23.08.2014
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery for Rs. 08,02,792/. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff is a private limited company duly incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 and CS No. 354/13 M/s. NTT Communication India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Manoj Barua Page 1 / 8 //2// having its registered office at Shop No. 10,44/F9, Kishangarh, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi110070 and besides several branches throughout the country. The plaintiff company is carrying on the business of the System Integration, LAN Cabling Solutions and Telecommunication Services(Data). Mr. Ramesh Chander is the Company Secretary of the plaintiff company and he has been duly authorized to sign, verify plaints, swear affidavits etc and to do all acts necessary or incidental to conduct of the suit. A certified copy of the resolution of the Board of Directors dated 29.08.2012 to this effect is placed on the record. It is further averred that the defendant runs his business of buying, selling of LAN Cabling materials and other network solutions materials, in the name and style of E2E Network Solutions at the addresses mentioned in the cause title of the plaint. He is personally liable for all the liabilities of the business carried in the name of the said firms E2E Network Solutions.
That the defendant approached the plaintiff company on various occasions and placed various purchase orders for supply of cabling and network solution materials of SIEMON make, to be delivered to the defendant or his client(s) as mentioned in the purchase orders. The terms of payment as had been promised in the purchase order was "30 CS No. 354/13 M/s. NTT Communication India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Manoj Barua Page 2 / 8 //3// days after delivery of material". One of such purchase orders dated 12.10.2010 reflecting the terms and conditions is placed on the recordas ANNEXURE P2.
That since the defendant was also in the business of supply of certain materials which were needed by the plaintiff for meeting the necessities of its own clients, the plaintiff also placed many orders upon the defendant. In view of the same, the condition of payment within 30 days from delivery, was relaxed and not strictly adhered to. The account of the defendant was a running account as he always made on account payment and none of the payment were made in respect of any particular bill or invoice. It is further averred that the plaintiff and the defendant entered into various transactions amongst themselves. The plaintiff made supplies of goods to the order of the defendant and also procured certain goods for meeting the needs of its own clients. All payments and credits amongst the parties were on account and never as against any particular set of bill(s) or transaction(s). The transactions details of the year 20102011 have been given by the plaintiff and in view of these transactions, a sum of Rs. 1394459.55 (Rupees Thirteen lacs Ninety Four Thousands Four Hundred Fifty Nine and Paise Fifty Five Only) become due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff in CS No. 354/13 M/s. NTT Communication India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Manoj Barua Page 3 / 8 //4// respect of the transactions taking place during the financial year 20102011. A certified copy of the extracts of the books of accounts, maintained by the plaintiff in the ordinary course of its business, for the year 20102011 and pertaining to the transactions with the defendant is also placed on record alongwith the plaint as ANNEXURE P3.
Similarly, the transactions took place amongst the parties during the financial year 20112012 and in view of these transactions, a sum of Rs.4,13,237.70 (Rupees Four Lacs Thirteen Thousand Two Hundred Thirty Seven and Paise Seventy Only) i.e. [(A+C)(B+C)] was paid by the defendant over and above their obligations pertaining to the financial year 20112012. Taking into account the balance of Rs.13,94,4569.55 pertaining to the previous year of 20102011 and setting off the sum of Rs. 4,13,237.70 a sum of Rs9,81,221.85 (Rupees Nine Lacs Eighty One Thousand Two Hundred Twenty One and Paise Eighty Five Only) remained due and outstanding as against the defendants as at the end of the financial year 20112012. A certified copy of the extracts of the books of accounts, maintained by the plaintiff in the ordinary course of its business, for the year 20102011 and pertaining to the transactions with the defendant is also placed on the record aongwith the plaint as ANNEXURE P4.
CS No. 354/13 M/s. NTT Communication India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Manoj Barua Page 4 / 8
//5// That the plaintiff called upon the defendants to clear the outstanding payments immediately as the due dates of payments stood elapsed. In view of the demands so made, the defendants have paid a sum of Rs. 2,73,874.65 (Rupees Two Lacs Sevety Three Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Four and Paise Sixty Five Only) to the plaintiff. The defendants also tendered cheques for a total amount of Rs. 4,31,661.40/ to the plaintiff in part discharge of their admitted liabilities, which however got dishonored upon presentation for the reason "Exceeds Arrangement". Hence in view of the above submission a sum of Rs. 7,07,347.20 (Rupees Seven Lac Seven Thousand Three Hundred Forty and Paise Twenty Only) is still due and outstanding against the defendant on account of principal. The dishonored cheques along with their return memos have also been placed on record alongwith plaint as ANNEXURE P5(Colly). It is further averred that the plaintiff brought the factum of dishonor of cheques to the notice of the defendants, to which he pleaded sorry and promised to make payments soon, to clear the admitted liabilities. However the defendant has now turned evasive, as despite several followups, he is not turning up to clear his admitted liabilities and hence arises the necessity of the suit. It is further averred that the plaintiff made constant followup with the defendant for the CS No. 354/13 M/s. NTT Communication India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Manoj Barua Page 5 / 8 //6// release of its payment and also wrote several letters and emails but the same remained unresponded. It is submitted that the liability in respect of transactions mentioned above is absolute and admitted and there is no dispute about the same. Accordingly withholding the said payment by the defendant is absolutely illegal and therefore the plaintiff is entitled to decree for the said sum.
That the defendant is also liable to pay interest on the outstanding amount, at the rate of 18% per annum, the prevailing rate of interest as per usage of trade, from the date of dishonour of the last cheque. In view of the same a sum of Rs.95,445/ (Ninety Five Thousand Four Hundred Forty Five Only) is due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff on account of interest.
It is submitted that in view of above a sum of Rs.8,02,792/ (Rupees Eight Lacs Two Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety Two Only) has become due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff company inclusive of interest @18% p.a calculated from June 2012 till the filing of the suit. Hence the present suit. Plaintiff on several subsequent dates made a demand for its outstanding dues but the same remained un responded and hence arises the necessity of the suit.
2. I have gone through the records. Plaintiff has initially filed the suit CS No. 354/13 M/s. NTT Communication India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Manoj Barua Page 6 / 8 //7// u/O XXXVII, however, he converted the same in an ordinary suit on the day of registration of the suit in the court. Notice of the suit was issued on various occasions but defendant remained unserved. Ultimately, on dated 19.02.2014 it was ordered that defendant be served by way of publication in the newspaper statesman for 04.04.2014. The defendant was called through the publication of the newspaper addition dated 15.03.2014, however, on the date of hearing on 04.04.2014 he remained absent and consequently proceeded Exparte.
3. In support of its case plaintiff examine PW1 Mr. Ramesh Chandar Company Secretary who is also authorized representative of the plaintiff. Plaintiff also examined Sh. Umesh Chaudhary who is AGM (procurement of technical support) of the plaintiff company. Plaintiff also relied upon documents Ex PW1/1, Ex PW1/3 and Ex PW1/5.
4. I have heard the argument tendered on behalf of plaintiff and have gone through the record as well as the documents exhibited by PW1. In absence of the defendants being exparte, the testimony of the plaintiff has remained unchallenged and unrebutted. There is nothing to disbelieve the unrebutted CS No. 354/13 M/s. NTT Communication India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Manoj Barua Page 7 / 8 //8// testimony of the plaintiff or the authenticity and veracity of the documents exhibited and proved on the record.
5. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for Rs. 8,02,792/ as prayed for in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Pendentelite and future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of this suit till the realization of the amount. Costs of the suit is also allowed to the plaintiff. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.
(Announced in open (LALIT KUMAR)
Court 23 August, 2014) ADJ01: South East District
Saket , New Delhi
CS No. 354/13 M/s. NTT Communication India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Manoj Barua Page 8 / 8