Delhi District Court
Ankur Gupta Proprietor Of M/S Mrcl Agri ... vs Aradhana Devi Proprietor Of M/S C.P. ... on 5 February, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY PANDEY
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT-10)
CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS Comm 2612/2022
Ankur Gupta
S/o Late Sh. Pradeep Kumar
Proprietor of M/s MRCL Agri Products
GST No.07AIAPG4831D1ZT
5183, Naya Bazar, Lahori Gate,
New Delhi - 110006 Plaintiff
Vs
Aradhana Devi
W/o Sh. Rakesh Shah @ Kanhiya
Proprietor of M/s C P Traders
GST NO.10AROPD1554HIZ7
Thana Road, Dal Singh Sarai,
Samastipur District,
Bihar-848114
Rakesh Shah @ Kanhiya
(Father name not known)
Representative of M/s C.P.Traders
Thana Road, Dal Singh Sarai,
Samastipur District,
Bihar-848114 Defendants
Date of Institution : 02.12.2022
Date of Arguments : 03.02.2024
Date of Judgment : 05.02.2024
Ex-PARTE JUDGMENT:
Suit For Recovery of Rs.26,33,247/- (Rupees Twenty Six
Lakh Thirty Three Thousand Two Hundred Forty Seven
Only)
1.The present suit for recovery has been filed by Ankur Gupta Vs. Aradhana Devi and Anr. CS Comm No.2612/2022 Page no. 1 of 8 plaintiff Sh. Ankur Gupta, for recovery of Rs.26,33,247/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakh Thirty Three Thousand Two Hundred Forty Seven Only) against the defendants stating inter-alia that the plaintiff deals in the business of sale-purchase of rice and pulses under the name and style of M/s MRCL Agri Products bearing GST no. 07AIAPG4831D1ZT directly as well as through various means and channels including brokers/commission agents. M/s C.P.Traders is proprietorship concern having GST No.10AROPD1554HIZ7 registered in the name of defendant no.1 Ms. Aradhana Devi as its Proprietor whereas defendant no.2 Rakesh Shah @ Kanhiya is husband of the defendant no.1/representative of defendant no.1. On 22.06.2021, the defendant no.2 on behalf of M/s C.P.Traders approached the plaintiff through Sh. L.B.Roy (a broker/commission agent), who visited the plaintiff's office and placed order in the name of M/s C.P.Traders for the supply of rice for a sum of Rs.18,60,000/- after having checked the samples of rice. The plaintiff agreed to supply the rice to defendants along with invoice/bill of supply on the conditions as stipulated therein. In pursuant to the order placed on behalf of M/s C.P.Traders, the rice was supplied to defendants along with invoice/bill of supply bearing no.791 dated 25.06.2021 for a sum of Rs.18,60,000/-. The rice was purchased on credit basis in the name of M/s C.P.Traders. On 08.07.2021, the defendant no.2 Ankur Gupta Vs. Aradhana Devi and Anr. CS Comm No.2612/2022 Page no. 2 of 8 placed another order in the name of M/s C.P.Traders to the plaintiff, for supply of rice for a sum of Rs.12,75,000/- to which the plaintiff agreed. The rice was supplied along with invoice/bill of supply bearing no.942 dated 08.07.2021 for a sum of Rs.12,75,000/-. The defendant no.2 acting for M/s C.P.Traders assured the plaintiff to make the entire payment in time. Despite assurances, the defendants failed to make the payment of outstanding amount within time i.e. within 30 days from the dates of invoices/bills of supply. It is further stated that the defendants used to transfer a very small amount in order to infuse trust and confidence in plaintiff and further used to assure the plaintiff that they would make the payment of remaining outstanding amount with interest within few days. Out of total amount of Rs.31,35,000/-, the defendant made on-account payment of Rs.10,50,000/- ( i.e Rs.5,00,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/- & Rs.50,000/- on 29.07.2021, 20.08.2021, 06.09.2021 and 03.12.2021 respectively) only through RTGS/NEFT from bank account of M/s C.P.Traders, directly to the bank account of plaintiff at HDFC Bank, Naya Bazar, New Delhi. Despite various efforts, the defendants did not make the payment of outstanding amounts and stopped to give any response to the calls of plaintiff. Ultimately, the plaintiff through his Advocate sent a legal notice dated 11.04.2022 to the defendants through speed post and courier but the defendants did Ankur Gupta Vs. Aradhana Devi and Anr. CS Comm No.2612/2022 Page no. 3 of 8 not reply to the said notice. The plaintiff had also received another on-account payment of Rs.50,000/- through NEFT on 27.04.2022 in his bank account from the account of M/s C.P.Traders. Since, the defendants failed to make the payments in pursuant to the said notice, the plaintiff was constrained to initiate Pre- Litigation Mediation proceedings before the Central District Legal Services Authority on 22.05.2022. Although, the defendants chose to abstain themselves from the Mediation Proceedings despite having been served with notice issued by DLSA, but during pendency of Mediation Proceedings, plaintiff received another on- account payment of Rs.50,000/- from the account of M/s C.P.Traders on 23.06.2022. A Non-Starter Report was issued on 08.09.2022 on account of non-appearance of the defendants. It is further stated that the plaintiff had also received another on account payment of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.20,000/- through NEFT on 17.10.2022 and 16.11.2022 directly in his bank account from the account of M/s C.P.Traders. As per books of accounts/ledgers, after giving due credits for all the part payments received by the plaintiff from defendants as on filing of case, the plaintiff received part payment of Rs.11,95,000/- (exclusive interest) out of total billed amount of Rs.31,35,000/-. As such, an amount of Rs.19,40,000/- is still due and payable by defendants being principal outstanding amount. Defendants are stated to be further Ankur Gupta Vs. Aradhana Devi and Anr. CS Comm No.2612/2022 Page no. 4 of 8 liable for payment of interest @ 25% per annum on account of delay in payment and an amount of Rs.6,93,246/- is stated to be due on that account. The defendants are liable to pay Rs.26,33,247/- towards principal outstanding and interest to the plaintiff. Hence, the present suit for recovery of Rs.26,33,247/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakh Thirty Three Thousand Two Hundred Forty Seven Only) along with pendentelite and future interest @ 25 % p.a.
2. Suit was filed under the Commercial Courts Act duly supported by statement of truth.
3. Vide Order dated 20.04.2023 of my Learned Predecessor, Defendants no.1 and 2 were served through registered post on 22.03.2023, through speed post on 21.03.2023 and through courier on 28.03.2023. However, neither defendants appeared nor any written statement was filed. Vide order dated 08.08.2023, the defendants were proceeded ex-parte.
4. In support of the petition, affidavit in evidence of PW-1 plaintiff Sh. Ankur Gupta was filed. In his testimony, he proved following documents:-
(i)Mark A is screenshot of GST details from the official website.
(ii)Ex.PW1/1 (carbon copy seen and returned) is bill/invoice no.791 dated 25.06.2021.
(iii)Ex.PW1/2 (carbon copy seen and returned) is bill/invoice no.942 dated 08.07.2021. Ankur Gupta Vs. Aradhana Devi and Anr. CS Comm No.2612/2022 Page no. 5 of 8
(iv)Ex.PW1/3, Ex.PW1/4 and Ex.PW1/5 are account statement/ledger as maintained by plaintiff.
(v)Ex.PW1/6 (colly.) are bank account statements.
(vi)Ex.PW1/7 is office copy of Legal Notice dated 11.04.2022.
(vii)Ex.PW1/8 and Ex.PW1/9 are speed post receipts.
(viii)Ex.PW1/10 and Ex.PW1/11 are courier receipts.
(ix)Ex.PW1/12 and Ex.PW1/13 are the tracking reports of speed posts.
5. Vide order dated 23.01.2024, a fresh affidavit of the payments due after adjustment of the amount received during pendency of the case was directed to be filed along with relevant documents. Accordingly, PW1 again tendered additional affidavit in evidence as Ex.PW1/B. In his further testimony, he proved following documents:-
(i)Mark B is is receipt dated 29.12.2022.
(ii)Ex.PW1/14 (colly.) are bank account statements.
(iii)Ex.PW1/15 (colly.)is ledger account statement as maintained by plaintiff.
(iv)Ex.PW1/16 is Certificate along with affidavit under Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act.
Upon separate statement of plaintiff, plaintiff's Ankur Gupta Vs. Aradhana Devi and Anr. CS Comm No.2612/2022 Page no. 6 of 8 evidence was closed vide order dated 03.02.2024.
6. Arguments on behalf of plaintiff were addressed by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
7. The court has considered arguments addressed on behalf of plaintiff and has gone through the material and evidence available on record.
8. By way of his unrebutted testimony, the plaintiff has proved that he has supplied rice totalling to Rs.31,35,000/- vide invoices no. 791 and 942 respectively. It is the case of the plaintiff that out of the said total amount of Rs.31,35,000/-, he has received an amount of Rs.11,95,000/- and an amount of Rs.19,40,000/- was due towards principal outstanding. Plaintiff has claimed pre-suit interest @ 25% per annum which was calculated to Rs.6,93,246/-. This Court is of the humble opinion that the interest @ 25% per annum would be on much higher side. Hence, the Court is restricting pre suit interest to Rs.5,00,000/- only. Hence, the total recoverable amount by the plaintiff on the date of filing of suit would be Serial No.
1. Principal Rs.19,40,000/ Outstanding Amount
2. Interest Rs.5,00,000/
3. Total Rs.24,40,000/ In the entire pliant, it appears that defendant no.2 has Ankur Gupta Vs. Aradhana Devi and Anr. CS Comm No.2612/2022 Page no. 7 of 8 transacted with the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant no.1 only. The payments have been also made by defendant no.1 only. In the facts and circumstances, it would be proper that decree for recovery be passed only against the defendant no.1.
9. Accordingly, suit of the plaintiff is decreed for an amount of Rs.24,40,000/- with pendentelite and future interest @ 16% per annum. Any amount paid by either of the defendants during pendency of the present suit shall be adjusted against the principal outstanding amount of Rs.19,40,000/- and the pendentelite interest would be calculated accordingly on the reduced amount.
10. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
11. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed byAnnounced in the open court th AJAY AJAY PANDEY on the 5 day of February, 2024 PANDEY Date: 2024.02.05 16:09:02 +0530 (Ajay Pandey) District Judge (Commercial Court-10) Central, Tis Hazari Courts,Delhi Ankur Gupta Vs. Aradhana Devi and Anr. CS Comm No.2612/2022 Page no. 8 of 8