Bangalore District Court
M/S Intech Solutions vs M/S 3S Technologies & on 30 November, 2019
Form
No.9
(Civil)
Title
Sheet
for
Judgmen
t in PRESENT: SMT. PRASHANTHI G,
B.A.(Law) LL.B.,
XXVII Additional City Civil Judge.
Dated this the 30 th day of November 2019
PLAINTIFF: M/S INTECH SOLUTIONS
2nd Floor, L.N. Complex,
Opp: Adiga's Nalapak,
Opp: HSBC, Arekere,
Bannerghatta Road,
Bangalore-560 076.
Represented by its Proprietor
Sri Raghavendra Bhat
S/o Late Manjunath Bhat,
Aged about 44 years.
[By Sri Santhosh Shetty.S., Advocate]
/v e r s u s/
DEFENDANT: M/S 3S TECHNOLOGIES &
AUTOMATION PVT. LTD.,
#2, 100 ft Ring Road, BTM
II Stage, Near Udupi Garden,
Bangalore.
Represented by its Director
Sri Anish Gopal.
[By Sri MP, Advocate]
Date of institution of the : 22/06/2017
suit
2
CT0028_O.S._4190_2017_Judgment_.doc
Nature of the suit : For recovery of money
Date of commencement of : 6/10/2018
recording of the evidence
Date on which the : 30/11/2019
Judgment was
pronounced.
: Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration
2 5 8
(Prashanthi. G)
XXVII ACCJ: B'LORE.
The plaintiff filed this suit against the defendants
directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.2,19,479/-
(Rupees two lakh nineteen thousand four hundred
seventy nine only) with interest at 18% per annum
from the date of plaint till the date of realisation of the
amount to the plaintiff and for the cost of the suit.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The plaintiff submits that the plaintiff has been
carrying on the business in dealing in computer/
networking/ UPS/ CCTV/ Telecom / EPABX/
ACCESS card/ Bio-metric and other allied works
under the name and style known as Intech Solutions
for the last several years.
3
CT0028_O.S._4190_2017_Judgment_.doc
Plaintiff further submits that during the course
of business the defendant had placed orders by mail
for supply of various materials on the condition of
issuing post dated cheque/s of 21 days immediately
after delivery of materials and subsequent to that the
plaintiff had supplied the materials to the defendant
against the invoices raised in the name of the
defendant as per list of the bills mentioned in the
plaint.
Plaintiff submits that at the instructions of the
defendant, all the materials are delivered to the
defendant at their office situated at No.2, 100 feet ring
road, BTM II stage, near Udupi Garden, Bangalore
with brand new warranty. That the plaintiff submits
that all the above materials are deliverd to the
defendant on condition of 21 days PDC (Post dated
cheque) payment against delivery of material as per
the purchase order of the defendant. Initially, on two
occasions the defendant had issued the post dated
cheque in respect of the items supplied and latter, as
the concerned person was not there to sign the
4
CT0028_O.S._4190_2017_Judgment_.doc
cheque, the defendant had not issued the post dated
cheque to the plaintiff on receipt of the materials from
the plaintiff and the person who received the materials
at the defendant's office informed that they will hand
over the cheque as soon as the concerned (signing
authority) person comes to the office, as he was out of
station at that particular point of time.
Plaintiff further submits that for the goods
supplied the defendant was required to pay a sum of
Rs.4,25,811/- under the aforesaid invoices /bills to it
and as against the same the defendant had paid a
sum of Rs.2,84,271/- to the plaintiff and the details of
the said payment is Rs.1,36,987/- is paid through
NEFT on 5/7/2014 (cheque issued by the defendant
bounced and as against the same NEFT done). Rs.
42,206/- paid through cheque No.515388 dated
29/7/2014 and Rs.1,05,078/- paid through cheque
No.406807 dated 9/10/2014. After deducting the
payment made the defendant is due a sum of
Rs.1,41,540/- to the plaintiff and inspite of plaintiff's
repeated requests, demands, telephonic calls,
5
CT0028_O.S._4190_2017_Judgment_.doc
personal wish to the defendant's office, the defendant
has not paid the remaining payment of Rs.1,41,540/-.
The defendant has been postponing the payment on
one or the other reasons and the defendant has
withheld the said amount illegally to enrich its
business at the cost of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had
trusted the defendant very much and as such
extended credit facility to the defendant without any
second thout, but the defendant had taken undue
advantage of the said faith reposed on the defendant
by the plaintiff and misused the same for unlawful
enrichment and illegal gain.
The plaintiff further submits that the defendant
after getting the above materials supplied intentionally
in order to defraud the plaintiff had not made the
payment to the plaintiff. The defendant instead of
making the payment now on one or the other reasons
postponing the same. Therefore, the plaintiff caused
legal notice calling upon the defendant to make the
payment and inspite of receipt of the said notice, the
defendant either not replied to the notice nor had
6
CT0028_O.S._4190_2017_Judgment_.doc
made the payment. Under the above circumstances,
plaintiff once again caused another notice dated
12/8/2015 calling upon the defendant to make the
due amount and inspite of receipt the same, the
defendant had not made the payment.
The plaintiff further submits that the defendant
is due a sum of Rs.1,41,540 as on 14/8/2014 and the
defendant had purchased the above materials for
business as such the defendant is required to pay
interest at 18% per annum on the amount
outstanding to the plaintiff. The plaintiff submits that
the defendant is due a sum of Rs.1,41,540/- towards
principal amount and Rs.67,939/- towards interest at
18% per annum from 14/8/2014 to uptodate, legal
notice charges of RS.5000/- each amounting to
Rs.10,000/- and in all amounting to Rs.2,19,479/- to
the plaintiff.
The cause of action for the above suit had arised
on various dates of supply of materials referred to
above, on various dates of demands, personal visits to
the defendant office, on 12/8/2015 the date on which
7
CT0028_O.S._4190_2017_Judgment_.doc
legal notice came to be issued and served on the
defendant and on all subsequent date of demands
within the jurisdiction of this court. Hence this suit.
3. The summons is duly served to the
defendant. Defendant appeared through his counsel
and filed written statement.
4. The main contentions of the defendant in
the written statement are as under:
The suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable either
under law or under facts and hence liable to be
dismissed in limine with exemplary costs. The plaintiff
has not approached the court with clean hands.
The defendant denies the averments stated in
para no.4 of the plaint that during the course of
business of plaintiff, the defendant had placed orders
by mail for supply of various materials on the
condition of issuing post dated cheque/s of 21 days
immediately after delivery of materials and
subsequent to that the plaintiff had supplied the
materials to the defendant against the invoices raised
in the name of the defendant. Further, the contentions
8
CT0028_O.S._4190_2017_Judgment_.doc
of the invoices mentioned in para no.4 are also
denied.
Further the averments in para no.5 regarding
delivery of materials to the defendant at their office
situated at no.2, 100 feet ring road, BTM II stage, near
Udupi Garden, Bangalore with brand new product
with company packing with manufacturing company's
direct warranty are false and far from truth. Further
averments about delivery of materials to defendant on
condition of 21 days PDC (Post Dated Cheque)
payment as per the Purchase Order and that on two
occaasions the defendant had issued the post dated
cheque in respect of the items supplied and later the
defendant had not issued the post dated cheque to
the plaintiff on receipt of the materials and that the
person who received the materials informed the
plaintiff that cheque will be handed over as soon as
the signing authority person comes to the office are all
denied as false, baseless and concocted story and also
the contents of the bills referred in para no.5 are not
9
CT0028_O.S._4190_2017_Judgment_.doc
admitted by the defendant and as such the plaintiff is
put to strict proof of the same.
Further the averments in para no.6 regarding
personal visits, repeated requests, demands and
telephonic calls are all hereby denied. Defendant
denies that it has been postponing the payment and
with held the defendant due payment illegally. Further
averments in the same paragraph to the effect that
the total due amount of Rs.1,41,540/- is payable are
denied.
Further the averments in para no.7 that the
defendant after getting the materials supplied
intentionally in order to defraud the plaintiff had not
made the payment and postponing the payment on
one or the other reasons are denied. Further the
averments in para no.8 regarding issuance of legal
notice are not within the knowledge of the defendant
and as such plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same.
Further the averments made in para no.9 are all false
and baseless and all not admitted by this defendant
and hence this defendant.
10
CT0028_O.S._4190_2017_Judgment_.doc
The defendant submits that they had purchased
two laptops from the plaintiff. However the said
laptops were defective and the defendant sent them to
the plaintiff for service. However till this date, the
plaintiff has neither returned them or serviced the
same and the said laptops are still in the custody of
the plaintiff. The plaintiff is liable to pay the cost of
the said two laptops to the defendant which amounts
to Rs.52,539/-.
There is no cause of action as alleged in the
plaint and the averred cause of action is a concocted
one for the purpose of the suit, and present suit is
barred by limitation. The suit is not properly valued
and court fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient.
Hence, plaintiffs are not entitled any reliefs. Therefore,
defendant prays to dismiss the suit.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,
my predecessor in office has framed the following
issues for consideration:
11
CT0028_O.S._4190_2017_Judgment_.doc
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he has
supplied goods to the defendant as per his
instructions?
(2) Whether plaintiff proves that cheque given
by the defendant towards the supply of
goods was bounced? [Deleted]
(3) Whether plaintiff proves that defendant is
liable to pay interest at the rate of 18% on
the principal amount?
(4) Whether plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as
sought for in the suit?
(5) What order or decree?
6. Plaintiff in order to prove its case, the
proprietor of the plaintiff is examined as PW.1 and
got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P17 and closed its side of
evidence. On behalf of the defendant, neither
examined nor produced any documents and closed
his side of evidence.
7. Heard both sides and perused entire
records of the case.
8. My findings on the above issues are as
under:
12
CT0028_O.S._4190_2017_Judgment_.doc
Issue No. 1) ............In the affirmative;
Issue No. 2) ............ deleted.
Issue No. 3) ............In the affirmative;
Issue No. 4) ............In the affirmative;
Issue No. 5) ............As per final order for
the following:
9. ISSUE NO.1 : It is the specific case of the
plaintiff that the defendants had placed orders by mail
for the supply of the various materials on the
condition of issuing the post dated cheques within 21
days after the delivery of the same. In this regard, the
plaintiff had supplied the materials and against which
the invoices are raised in the name of the defendant.
In order to substantiate the claim of the plaintiff,
plaintiff has produced Ex.P1 to Ex.P14 invoices. I
have carefully gone through all the invoices produced
by the plaintiff wherein the defendant had put
signature after affixing the seal for delivery of the
goods. Further Ex.P17 is the E-mail issued by the
defendant to the plaintiff stating that considering the
mail as an order of confirmation for the following,
13
CT0028_O.S._4190_2017_Judgment_.doc
deliver the materials at the earliest. It is also further
agreed between the parties that payment term is 21
days PDC from the date of supply. So, from Ex.P17, it
is clear that by sending this email the defendant has
offered the orders to the plaintiff and confirmed the
same. One of the main contention taken by the
defendant in the above case is that there is no
purchase order with regard to the entire goods
supplied by the plaintiff. Moreover, the defendant has
denied each and every allegations of the plaint
averments. When there is no purchase order from the
side of the defendant, there is no liability to the
defendant to pay the amount to the plaintiff. However,
this contention of the defendant is not correct because
in the Ex.P17 itself the defendant agreed to supply the
materials to him at the earliest and he is also ready to
make the payment within 21 days from the date of
delivery of such materials. On perusal of entire
invoices produced by the plaintiff, it is clear that
every invoice has been signed by the defendant and he
has affixed the seal on the documents. This itself
14
CT0028_O.S._4190_2017_Judgment_.doc
shows that the plaintiff has supplied the goods to the
defendant as per his instructions. There is no
explanation from the side of the defendant for the
Ex.P17 as well as the seal and signature of the
defendant in the invoices produced by the plaintiff.
Nowhere in the written statement he has commented
upon the invoices produced by the plaintiff and also
the email issued by the defendant in favour of the
plaintiff confirming the order. The only contention of
the defendant is with regard to the rate of interest on
the principal amount is highly exorbitant. The rules of
the pleadings specifically says, it is not only sufficient
to deny the averments of the plaint mechanically
rather than the written statement has to be filed by
denying the pleadings specifically. In the present
context, except denying the rate of interest as
exorbitant, nothing is pleaded by the defendant
denying the transaction of plaintiff. Further, merely by
denying the written statement he indirectly admits the
transactions of plaintiff by admitting the pleadings.
An adverse inference can be drawn against the
15
CT0028_O.S._4190_2017_Judgment_.doc
defendant in this regard. From the documents
submitted by the plaintiff and also from the pleadings,
it is clear that the plaintiff has successfully proved
that he has supplied the materials to the defendant as
per the instructions of the defendant himself.
Accordingly, I answer issue no.1 in the affirmative.
10. ISSUE NO.3: One of the main contention
taken by the plaintiff is that defendant by sending the
email as per Ex.P17 confirm the order and received
the materials supplied by the plaintiff. Even after
supply of the materials in time as agreed the
defendant did not paid the amount within the 21
days from the date of the supply as agreed between
them. Though the defendant denies the plaint
averments by affixing the seal and signature in the
invoices he admitted the supply of the goods to him.
So the contention that the defendant is not at all
liable to pay the amount does not arise at all. Further,
all the materials supplied by the plaintiff is for the
business of the defendant. The entire transaction took
16
CT0028_O.S._4190_2017_Judgment_.doc
place in the year 2014 itself and the last transaction is
on 14/8/2014. From that day, till filing of this date,
the defendant did not paid any amount to the
plaintiff. Even after the legal notice issued to the
defendant, as per Ex.P15, the defendant did not turn
up and paid the amount, rather than only after the
suit summons was served to him from this court, he
has appeared before the court and denied the
transactions. Since the defendant is completely aware
of all transactions by putting the signature on the
invoices, I am of the opinion that he has intentionally
evaded the liability of claiming suit claim to the
plaintiff. Under the above circumstances, I am of the
opinion that no harm will be caused to the defendant
if 18% interest is added to the principal sum as
claimed by the plaintiff. Accordingly, I answer issue
no.3 in the affirmative.
11. ISSUE NO.4: From the above reasonings
and discussions, it is clear that the plaintiff has
supplied the materials to the defendants as he has
17
CT0028_O.S._4190_2017_Judgment_.doc
pleaded in the plaint and in this regard he has
produced the invoices as Ex.P1 to Ex.P14 and the
defendant also put the signatures and seals to the
same. Though defendant denied that there is no order
from his side by accepting the delivery of the goods, he
ratified the contract. Moreover, Ex.P17 is very clear
stating that the defendant has confirmed the order of
the plaintiff. Though defendant contended that the
suit itself is barred by limitation, on perusal of the
documents, it is clear that the last invoice as per
Ex.P14 is on 14/8/2014. Further, the plaintiff issued
the legal notice as per Ex.P15 is on 22/4/2016. The
same was served to the defendant on 25/4/2016. The
present suit is filed on 20/6/2017. No doubt, in the
suit for recovery of money the limitation is 3 years. If
at all calculated from the last invoice i.e, from
14/8/2014 the suit is to be filed within 13/8/2017.
However the present suit is filed in June 2017 itself is
within limitation. Therefore, whatever the contentions
taken by the defendant that the suit of the plaintiff is
bad for limitation is not correct. From the pleadings
18
CT0028_O.S._4190_2017_Judgment_.doc
and from the documents submitted by the plaintiff, I
am of the opinion that plaintiff is entitled to the relief
as sought for. Accordingly I answer issue no.4 in the
affirmative.
12. ISSUE NO.5: From my above discussions
and reasoning, the suit of the plaintiff deserves to be
decreed. In the result, I pass the following:
The suit of the plaintiff is hereby
decreed.
The plaintiff is entitled to recover a
sum of Rs.2,19,479/- from the
defendant with interest at the rate of
18% per annum from the date of
filing of the suit till the realisation.
No order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
***
[Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer, Script corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in the Open Court on this the 30 th day of November 2019.] [PRASHANTHI.G] XXVII Additional City Civil Judge.
BANGALORE.
19 CT0028_O.S._4190_2017_Judgment_.doc
1. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Plaintiff/s:
PW.1 Raghavendra Bhat
2. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendant/s:
NIL.
3. List of documents marked on behalf of the Plaintiff/s:
Ex.P1 to Invoices Ex.P14 Ex.P15 Office copy of the legal notice Ex.P16 Postal acknowledgement Ex.P17 E-mail dated 16/7/2014 (consisting of 42 pages)
4. List of the documents marked for the defendants:
Nil.
[PRASHANTHI.G] XXVII Additional City Civil Judge.
BANGALORE.
30/11/2019 P-SSS D-MP For Judgement...
Judgment pronounced in the Open Court....
(Vide separate detailed judgment) The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed.
The plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.2,19,479/- from the defendant with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the realisation.
No order as to costs. Draw decree accordingly.
[PRASHANTHI.G] XXVII Additional City Civil Judge.
BANGALORE.
2 CT0028_O.S._4190_2017_Judgment_.doc 1 2 CT0028_O.S._4190_2017_Judgment_.doc 2 fdfdf