Delhi District Court
Central vs M/S Viraj Tractor Industry on 5 November, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. MANU VEDWAN, CIVIL JUDGE,
CENTRAL-01, DELHI
SUIT NO. 673/09
M/s Milhard Sales Pvt. Ltd.,
Through its Authorized Signatory-Cum-Accountant,
Having its Regd. Office at :
4772, Hauz Qazi, Inside Ajmeri Gate,
Delhi-110006. ..........Plaintiff
VERSUS
M/s Viraj Tractor Industry
Through its Prop./Partner/Principal Officer,
Having its Regd. Office at:
B-4, C-1st Phase, Basni, Jodhpur, (Rajasthan) ...........Defendant
Date of Institution : 20.08.2009
Date of Judgment : 05.11.2011
EX-PARTE J U D G M E N T
1.Vide this ex-parte judgment, I shall decide the suit for recovery of Rs. 11,980/- alongwith interest @12% p.a. pendente-lite and future interest till realisation.
The material facts germane to the present suit as culled out from the plaint are as follows:
2. It is submitted in the plaint that the plaintiff is a Private Limited Company registered under the Indian Companies Act and having its registered office at 4772, Hauz Qazi, Delhi-110006 and deals in manufacturing and trading of tools and equipments and also deals in import and exports through Code No. 05910447977 and having its specialization in engineering tools, precision, Suit No:673/09 Page No:1/6 2 measuring instruments, metal working tools, and workshop equipments and further more, the plaintiff is also the authorized distributor of Mitutoyo Precision Tools since long back.
3. It is further submitted that the defendant company through its agent/employee/representative/sales-man/Director/principal officer/manager used to place the order for supply of various equipments / goods / articles to the plaintiff company either through the purchase order/s, letter/s, telephonically request, Fax or personally through its agent / employee / representative / sales man/ director / manager / principal officer at the registered address of the plaintiff company.
4. It is further submitted that the defendant company used to purchase the goods/articles equipments on credit as well as cash basis or also according to the general usage, norms and customs of the market. The defendant also used to purchase the goods/articles/equipments by making the part payment either in cash, cheque or pay order through its agent/employee/representative/salesman/manager/principal officer or some time sent the part payment through the courier/postal authorities by cheque, demand draft, pay order against the bills so issued by the defendant company.
5. It is further submitted that the plaintiff further used to maintain the accounts of which the plaintiff company is the registered distributor and the goods/ articles/ equipments so purchased by the plaintiff and the goods/ articles/ equipments which were purchased by the defendant company from the plaintiff Suit No:673/09 Page No:2/6 3 company. The defendant company lastly made the transaction with the plaintiff company on 30.08.06 and thereby left the outstanding amount of Rs. 9,510/- (Rupees Nine Thousand Five Hundred Ten only) towards the total outstanding amount for the financial year ending on 31st March, 2007 as per the ledger, profit and loss account and statement of account of the plaintiff company.
6. It is further submitted that the plaintiff company through its agent/ employee/ representative/ salesman/ Director/ Manager/ principal Officer repeatedly, regularly and without any discontinuance had or has raised the demands either on telephonically, Fax, as well as by way of letters and reminders for the outstanding/balance amount for the defendant company but all in vain through the postal and courier authorities and agencies but the defendant company kept the matter under the negligence's and avoid on the each pretext instead of making the outstanding amount to the plaintiff company.
7. It is further submitted that when the plaintiff company left with no option but to issue a legal notice dated 31.03.2009 upon the defendant company by Regd.A.D and U.P.C. The defendant company has been duly served as presumed that no U.P.C. or sealed envelope sent by the plaintiff company through its counsel has been received back till date. The defendant company despite the fact that has been duly served and has the knowledge that there is outstanding amount is payable to the plaintiff has neither tender the payable amount to the plaintiff company nor has cleared the balance/outstanding amount to the plaintiff company.
Suit No:673/09 Page No:3/6 4 On these ground, plaintiff has made the following prayer :-
"(a) That this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to pass a decree of recovery of a sum of Rs. 11,980/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty Only) in favour of the plaintiff company and against the defendant company with the pendente-lite and future interest @ 12% per annum till the realization and recovery.
(b) Award the cost of the suit, litigation charges and misc. charges (including the typing, photocopies etc. and visiting charges of the plaintiff / AR of the plaintiff company to appear before this Hon'ble Court.
(c) Pass any other order/s or relief/s, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case/matter/suit in favour of the plaintiff company and against the defendant, in the interest of justice."
8. On account of the above facts and circumstances, the plaintiff instituted the plaint and the defendant was served but none for the defendant was present thereafter the defendant was proceeded against ex-parte on 21.03.2011 and the matter was listed for Ex-parte P.E.
9. Plaintiff got examined Sh. Dhan Raj Singh, S/o Sh. Tara Chand, S/o Milhard Sales Pvt. Ltd, have its Regd. Office at 4772, Hauz Qazi, Inside Ajmeri Gate as PW-1 and reiterated the same facts as are submitted in the plaint.
PW-1 relied upon the following documents :-
Suit No:673/09 Page No:4/6
5
Ex.PW-1/1 - Resolution dated 23.04.2009.
Ex.PW-1/2 - Photocopy of GPA (OSR).
Ex.PW-1/2A (Colly)- Copy of the certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence
Act qua the electronic statement of account filed by the plaintiff.
Ex.PW-1/3 - Copy of statement account maintained by the plaintiff company for the financial year 01.04.2006 to 31.032007.
Ex.PW-1/4 (Colly)- Copies of both bills alongwith courier receipts
Ex.PW-1/5 - Copy of legal notice
Ex.PW-1/6 - Copy of postal receipt
Ex. PW-1/7 - UPC
Ex. PW-1/8 - AD card
10. I have perused the plaint and evidences produced by the plaintiff in support of his case and heard submissions on behalf of plaintiff. I have seen the point of limitation and jurisdiction, same is within limitation and jurisdiction of this court.
11. In plaint it has been mentioned that defendants have been purchasing goods / articles, equipments from plaintiff on credit as well as cash basis from time to time and outstanding amount has been shown by the plaintiff against the defendant as per open running account, for the said purpose and all entries pertaining to transactions between plaintiff and defendants have been entered into said running account.
Suit No:673/09 Page No:5/6 6
12. After perusal of documents i.e. account statements which is Ex.PW-1/3 (colly), legal notice Ex.PW-1/5 etc. placed on record on behalf of the plaintiff it is not clear as to how much quantity of a specific quality of goods alleged to be delivered to defendant was ordered to be delivered by the defendant. Documents placed on record on behalf of the plaintiff are not sufficient to prove the alleged transactions between the plaintiff and defendant on point raised in previous lines.
13. In view of the above mentioned discussion, documents, various letters which are Ex.PW-1/3, Ex. PW-1/4 and Ex.PW-1/5 placed on record by the plaintiff can be of corroborative nature pertaining to any contract if entered between the parties but can not be of substantive nature to show alleged transactions. Plaintiff has miserably failed to prove his case as the contractual relationship has never been proved in view of the Evidence Act by the plaintiff, so, the suit is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
(ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT) (MS.MANU VEDWAN) ON 5th OF NOVEMBER, 2011 CIVIL/JUDGE/CENTRAL01 ALL PAGES SIGNED DELHI Suit No:673/09 Page No:6/6