Bangalore District Court
Sri Anil Kumar Jain vs M/S. Alona Kitchenette & on 4 October, 2016
C.R.P.67] Government of Karnataka
Form No.9
(Civil) Title Sheet for
Judgement in
Suits
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, (SCCH-16)
AT BANGALORE
PRESENT: SRI. SATISH J.BALI,
B.Com., LL.M.,
X Addl.Judge, Court of Small Causes
(SCCH-16) Bangalore.
DATED THIS THE 04th DAY OF OCTOBER 2016
S.C No.21/2016
PLAINTIFF: : Sri Anil Kumar Jain,
S/o Jeetmal Jain,
Aged about 31 years,
Proprietor of M/s Sparsh
Marketing, No.51,
Ground Floor,
Raja Hariharan Towers,
Opp: Hotel Thrishal,
Sujjan Rao Road, V.V. Pura,
Bangalore - 560 004.
(Sri B.M. Maheswara,
Advocate)
Vs.
DEFENDANTS: 1. M/s. Alona Kitchenette &
Interiors Pvt. Ltd.,
No.471/1, Carmelaram Gate,
Carmelaram Railway Station
Road, Sarjapura Main Road,
Bangalore - 560 035.
Represented by its
Managing Director,
Sri Saji Joseph.
(Sri M.R. Krishnamurthy,
Advocate)
2 (SCCH-16) S.C. 21/2016
2. Sri Saji Joseph,
Major in age,
Managing Director of
M/s. Alona Kitchenette &
Interiors Pvt. Ltd.,
No.471/1, Carmelaram Gate,
Carmelaram Railway Station
Road, Sarjapura Main Road,
Bangalore - 560 035.
(Sri M.R. Krishnamurthy,
Advocate)
Date of Institution : 02-01-2016
of suit
Nature of the suit : Recovery of money.
Date of the :
commencement of 13-07-2016
recording of the
evidence
Date on which the : 04-10-2016
Judgment was
pronounced
: YEARS MONTHS DAYS
Total duration 00 09 02
JUDGEMENT
The Plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants for recovery of Rs.53,316/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of suit till its realization.
2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are as under:
The plaintiff is carrying on the business in laminate sheets as wholesaler under the name and style of M/s.
3 (SCCH-16) S.C. 21/2016 Sparsh Marketing. The first defendant is carrying on the business in interiors under the name and style of M/s. Alona Kitchenette and Interiors Pvt. Ltd. The second defendant is the Managing Director of the first defendant firm. The defendants approached the plaintiff to purchase laminate sheets for their business purpose on credit basis. The defendants purchased laminate sheets from the plaintiff on credit basis vide invoice No.0019, 0280, 0349, 0437, 0526, 0826, 01082, 01165, 01355, 01451, 01578, 02549, 02569, 02601, 02637, 02936, 03291, 03359, 03585, 0292, 0328, 0368, 0584, 0633 and 0680 worth of Rs.2,33,450/-. It is submitted that, out of the above said purchase amount, the defendants have paid a sum of Rs.1,85,200/- on the following dates, 07-04-2014, 08-05-2014, 02-06-2014, 29-07-2014, 03- 11-2014, 05-11-2014, 22-11-2014, 06-01-2015, 11-05-2015, 30-05-2015, 01-06-2015. The defendants were found in due of Rs.48,250/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
3. It is further case of the plaintiff that, the second defendant has issued a cheque bearing No.129846 dated 07- 06-2015 for a sum of Rs.20,100/- drawn on Federal Bank, Marath Halli Branch, Bangalore, towards part payment of the 4 (SCCH-16) S.C. 21/2016 outstanding due. The said cheque was presented for payment through Bank of Maharashtra, City Market Branch, which came to be dishonoured on 24-08-2015 for the reasons "Funds insufficient". In this regard on 04-09-2015 a legal notice was issued calling upon the defendants to pay the above said due amount with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. In spite of service of the said notice, the defendants have not repaid the above said amount. Hence, the present suit.
4. In response to the summons, both the defendants appeared and filed their written statement contending that, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on the facts, as the plaintiff has not approached this court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts. The defendant admits that, it is carrying on the business of interiors under the name and style of M/s. Alona Kitchenette and Interiors Pvt. Ltd. The defendant No.2 denied that, it had purchased laminate sheets worth of Rs.2,33,450/- from the plaintiff on credit basis. The defendants contended that, they have purchased laminate sheets only to an amount of Rs.1,85,200/- which has been cleared. The defendants 5 (SCCH-16) S.C. 21/2016 further contended that, there is no balance amount payable to the plaintiff. The defendants denied that, it had issued the cheque bearing No.129846 dated 07-06-2015 for a sum of Rs.20,100/- towards part payment of the outstanding due amount. It is contended that, the plaintiff has taken the blank cheques of the second defendant, at the time of beginning of the business and said blank cheque has been produced in order to make wrongful gain. The defendants further contended that, they have stopped purchasing of materials from the plaintiff, as the plaintiff has not supplied good quality of laminate sheets. Hence, due to stoppage of business with the plaintiff, the plaintiff by taking advantage of blank cheque has presented the same by filling it. The defendants denied that, they have served with legal notice on 27-03-2014 and there is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit. Hence, on all these grounds, the defendants prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
5. On the basis of the above said pleadings and propositions of law, the following issues have been framed:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the defendant has purchased laminate sheets
6 (SCCH-16) S.C. 21/2016 worth of Rs.2,33,450/- as stated in para 3 of plaint?
2. Whether plaintiff proves that, defendant is in due of Rs.48,250/-?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief claimed in the suit?
4. What Order?
6. The proprietor of plaintiff firm was examined as PW1 and got marked documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P31. The Managing Director of first defendant firm was examined as DW1 and no documents were marked on behalf of the defendants.
7. Heard the arguments and perused the materials on record.
8. By considering the evidence on record and because of my below discussed reasons, I answer the above points in the following:
Issue No.1: IN THE AFFIRMATIVE Issue No.2: IN THE AFFIRMATIVE Issue No.3: PARTLY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE Issue No.4: AS PER FINAL ORDER 7 (SCCH-16) S.C. 21/2016 REASONS ISSUE No.1:
9. The proprietor of the plaintiff firm has stepped into witness box and reiterated the plaint averments in his examination-in-chief as PW1. He has deposed that, on various dates, the defendants have purchased the laminate sheets as per tax invoices marked at Ex.P1 to Ex.P26. Further, the PW1 deposed that the defendants out of the above said purchase have made payment of Rs.1,85,200/- and now the defendants are liable to pay a sum of Rs.48,250/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. It is also deposed by PW1 that, the cheque issued towards part payment of Rs.20,100/- by the defendants came to be dishonoured for "Funds insufficient" which is marked at Ex.P28 and Ex.P29.
10. The tax invoices from 27-03-2014 to 05-06-2015 marked at Ex.P1 to Ex.P26, the statement of account from 01-04-2014 to 01-12-2015 marked at Ex.P27, the original cheque bearing No.129846 for Rs.20,100/- was marked at Ex.P28, bank return memo marked at Ex.P29, office copy of the legal notice dated 04-09-2015 marked at Ex.P30, two 8 (SCCH-16) S.C. 21/2016 postal receipts marked at Ex.P30 and Ex.P31. The PW1 in his cross examination stated that, on the basis of market reference, they were transact with the customers on credit basis. It is suggested to PW1 that, at the time of transactions, they use to collect the blank cheques as a security which is denied. The PW1 stated that, since from 2 years, the defendants have transacted to it to the tune of Rs.2,33,450/-. It is suggested that, the Ex.P23 does not bear seal and signature of the defendants. It is also suggested that Ex.P1 to Ex.P23 are not related to the defendants which is denied. The PW1 also denied that, the defendants were not in due of Rs.48,250/- and with signature and other writing on cheque Ex.P28 are in different inks, the said suggestion was also denied.
11. The DW1 in his examination in chief has deposed that, they were not in due of Rs.48,250/- and they have purchased laminate sheets only to an amount of Rs.1,85,200/- which is cleared off and there is no due from them. In cross examination DW1 admitted that, it had purchased laminate sheets of plaintiff company on credit 9 (SCCH-16) S.C. 21/2016 basis and Ex.P1 to Ex.P26 are invoices in respect of the said purchase. The DW1 stated that, they have purchased the laminate sheets worth of Rs.1,88,000/- only and the payments are made by way of cheques. It is also admitted by DW1 that, when they use to purchase articles, they will not make payment on the same day and admitted that Ex.P28 cheque was issued from their company which was returned with an endorsement "Funds insufficient". It is also admitted by DW1 that, as per Ex.P30 notice, demand was made to clear off the due amount of dishonour of the Ex.P28 cheque. The DW1 admitted that, they have not replied to the said notice and Ex.P30 notice was issued, was received in their office in his name. The DW1 admitted that, they have not produced any document to show that, they have purchased the laminate sheets worth of Rs.1,88,000/-.
12. From perusal of the above said cross examination of PW1 and DW1, it is quite clear that, the DW1 clearly admitted that, as per the invoices Ex.P1 to Ex.P26, they have purchased the laminate sheets from the plaintiff firm. The tax invoices makes it very clear that, the plaintiff firm has 10 (SCCH-16) S.C. 21/2016 supplied laminate sheets to the defendants worth of Rs.2,33,450/-. The ledger account extract marked at Ex.P27 reflects the above said invoices and defendants were due of Rs.48,250/-. The defendants have issued the Ex.P28 cheque for Rs.20,100/- on 07-06-2015 which came to be dishonoured for "Funds insufficient" as per Ex.P29. The said fact was admitted by the DW1 in his cross examination. Though, DW1 stated that, they have purchased laminate sheets worth of Rs.1,88,000/-, but they have not produced any document to that effect. If at all, there was no transaction as stated by the plaintiff, there was no acquisition to the defendants to issue cheques to the plaintiff. The DW1 admitted that, he has received legal notice as per Ex.P30. If at all there was no due from the defendant company, the said legal notice ought to have been replied. Though, PW1 was cross examined at length, but nothing worthwhile has been elicited from the mouth of PW1. Per contra, the DW1 admitted that, as per the invoices Ex.P1 to Ex.P26, they have purchased laminate sheets from the plaintiff company and issued the cheque towards part payment of the due as per Ex.P28 which came to be dishonoured as per Ex.P29. 11 (SCCH-16) S.C. 21/2016 Therefore, the plaintiff proves that, the defendants have purchased laminate sheets worth of Rs.2,33,450/- and accordingly this issue is answered in the Affirmative.
ISSUE No.2:
13. The ledger account extract marked at Ex.P27 reveals that, as on 01-12-2015, the defendant was found in due of Rs.48,250/-. The cheque issued for the part payment of the above said due amount as per Ex.P28 was dishonoured for funds insufficient. The defendants in spite of receipt of notice as per Ex.P30 have not cleared off. There is no cross examination in respect of the ledger account extract Ex.P27 by the defendants. When Ex.P1 to Ex.P26 were read and tallied with Ex.P27, it is quite clear that, the defendants were due of Rs.48,250/-. Accordingly, I answer issue No.2 in the Affirmative.
ISSUE No.3:
14. The DW1 in his cross examination admitted that, they use to purchase the materials on credit basis. The plaintiff has claimed interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
But, there is no agreement to that effect. The rate of interest claimed by the plaintiff appears to be exorbitant and baseless. 12 (SCCH-16) S.C. 21/2016 Hence, having regard to the prevailing rate of interest and nature of transaction, it is just and reasonable to award interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till actual realization. Accordingly, I answer issue No.3 Partly in the Affirmative.
ISSUE No.4:
15. For the forgoing discussions, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the Plaintiff is hereby partly decreed with costs.
The Defendants are liable to pay a sum of Rs.48,250/-
with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till actual realization.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this 04th day of October 2016) (SATISH.J.BALI), X Addl.Judge, Court of Small Causes Bangalore.
13 (SCCH-16) S.C. 21/2016 ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiff:
PW1 Sri Anil Kumar Jain List of documents exhibited on behalf of plaintiff:
Ex.P-1 Tax invoice dtd: 27.03.2014 Ex.P-2 Tax invoice dtd: 02.04.2014 Ex.P-3 Tax invoice dtd: 22.04.2014 Ex.P-4 Tax invoice dtd: 26.04.2014 Ex.P-5 Tax invoice dtd: 03.05.2014 Ex.P-6 Tax invoice dtd: 12.05.2014 Ex.P-7 Tax invoice dtd: 05.06.2014 Ex.P-8 Tax invoice dtd: 25.06.2014 Ex.P-9 Tax invoice dtd: 04.07.2014 Ex.P10 Tax invoice dtd: 18.07.2014 Ex.P11 Tax invoice dtd: 24.07.2014 Ex.P12 Tax invoice dtd: 02.08.2014 Ex.P13 Tax invoice dtd: 28.10.2014 Ex.P14 Tax invoice dtd: 30.10.2014 Ex.P15 Tax invoice dtd: 03.11.2014 Ex.P16 Tax invoice dtd: 07.11.2014 Ex.P17 Tax invoice dtd: 03.12.2014 Ex.P18 Tax invoice dtd: 03.01.2015 Ex.P19 Tax invoice dtd: 09.01.2015 Ex.P20 Tax invoice dtd: 03.02.2015 Ex.P21 Tax invoice dtd: 28.04.2015 Ex.P22 Tax invoice dtd: 01.05.2015
14 (SCCH-16) S.C. 21/2016 Ex.P23 Tax invoice dtd: 05.05.2015 Ex.P24 Tax invoice dtd: 26.05.2015 Ex.P25 Tax invoice dtd: 30.05.2015 Ex.P26 Tax invoice dtd: 05.06.2015 Ex.P27 Statement of account of the defendant from 01.04.2014 to 01.12.2015 Ex.P28 Original Cheque bearing No. 129846, for Rs.
20,100/-.
Ex.P29 Bank return Memo Ex.P30 Office copy of the legal notice dtd: 04.09.2015 Ex.P31 Two postal receipts List of witnesses examined on behalf of defendants:
None List of documents exhibited on behalf of defendants:
Nil (SATISH.J.BALI), X Addl.Judge, Court of Small Causes Bangalore.