Delhi District Court
M/S. Metone Electronics Pvt. Ltd vs M/S. Choice Chemtech Pvt. Ltd on 15 April, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. AMITABH RAWAT,
JSCC/ASCJ/GJ, SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Suit no. 92/09
Unique Identification No. 02402C0069422014
M/s. Metone Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
211, Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi.
through its Auth. Representative
Sh. Ankit Jain ...........Plaintiff
Versus
M/s. Choice Chemtech Pvt. Ltd.,
B-30, Sector-63, Noida,
through Sh. Vinod Goel,
Managing Director/Director .......... Defendant
Suit for Recovery of Rs.82,947/- (Rupees Eighty Two Thousand, Nine
Hundred Forty Seven only)
1. Date of institution of Suit : 02.03.2009
2. Judgment reserved on : 15.04.2015
3. Date of Judgment : 15.04.2015
4. Decision : Suit Decreed and
Counter-claim dismissed
JUDGMENT
1. (a) This is a suit for recovery of Rs.82,974/- filed by the plaintiff against the defendant, who has filed a counter claim of Rs.36,995/-.
(b) Plaintiff's case is that the plaintiff company used to supply goods to the defendant company on the order placed by the latter with it at Delhi and the plaintiff company has been raising bills of the goods supplied to the defendant. The plaintiff company has been maintaining regular books of accounts of the defendant in due course of business and Suit no.92/09 Page no. 1 of 9 the ledger maintained by the plaintiff shows the balance amount of Rs. 64,803/- due against the defendant in the year ending on 31.03.2008. The plaintiff has been asking the defendant to make the balance payment of Rs.64,803/- which remains outstanding and due to the plaintiff through various letters/ reminders but the defendant neither paid nor replied the said letters/reminders.
c) Thereafter plaintiff got served a demand notice dated 24.12.2008 by registered AD and UPC whereby the defendant was called upon to make the payment of Rs.64,803/- the principal amount along with interest accrued thereon @ 24% p.a. from December, 2007 onwards till the payment is made. The said notice has been duly served both ways upon the defendant. However, the defendant after a lapse of two months of the service of notice sent a false and frivolous reply of the demand notice. Inspite of the service of notice the defendant has failed to pay the principal amount as well as interest accrued thereon amounting Rs. 18,144/- totaling Rs.82,947/-.
2. a) Defendant filed his written statement-cum-Counter claim and has taken the preliminary objections and have denied the contentions made in the plaint.
b) Ld. Counsel for defendant submits that the plaintiff has not approached the Hon'ble Court with clean hands and had concealed the material facts from this Hon'ble Court regarding unauthorized usage of blank Sales Tax Form No.3497570 given by the defendant to the plaintiff for import of goods from Delhi to Noida by the defendant from the plaintiff. The plaintiff instead of sending the goods to the defendant on the aforesaid Sales Tax Form had used the same for the goods sent by the Suit no.92/09 Page no. 2 of 9 plaintiff to one M/s. Hotline Electronics ltd., Greater Noida in an illegal and unauthorized manner thus causing pecuniary losses to the defendant and instead of rectifying his mistake and making good the losses caused to the defendant and filed the present case in a malafide manner on false grounds.
c) It is further contended that the plaintiff has concealed the material facts of issuance of debit note no. CCPL/71/08-09 dated 10.04.2008 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- against the losses caused to the defendant due to unauthorized use of blank sales tax form. Thus, not only is the plaintiff not entitled to the amount of Rs.64,803/- but also the defendant is entitled to an amount of Rs.36,995/- from the plaintiff by way of Counter-claim.
3. The plaintiff filed replication-cum-written statement to the Counter- claim of the defendant. The plaintiff reiterated the contents of the plaint and denied the allegations of the defendant. It was clarified that due to inadvertence the said blank form no.3497570 was filed while sending the goods to M/s. Hot Line Electronics. However, as soon as the plaintiff came to know of their inadvertent mistake, it sent a letter dated 04.09.2007 informing the defendant that the said form has been canceled. No lost was caused to the defendant as intimation was communicated. Even otherwise, loss can only be suffered if the defendant has deposited any amount with the sales tax authority for the alleged form, which has been cancelled by the plaintiff itself. Also no loss could have been caused till the defendant deposit the amount with the sales tax department for alleged misuse of Sales Tax Form. The debit note was never issued as alleged by the defendant.
3. On completion of pleadings, the following issues were framed on Suit no.92/09 Page no. 3 of 9 03.04.2012:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the principal amount of Rs.64,803/- from the defendant? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest? If yes, at what rate and for what period? OPP
3. Whether the debit note dated 10.04.08 for an amount of Rs. One lac was rightly issued by the defendant? (OPD)
4. Whether the defendant is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.36,995/- from the plaintiff in terms of his counter claim? (OPD)
5. Whether the defendant is entitled to interest? If yes, at what rate and for what period? (OPD)
6. Relief.
4. In evidence, the plaintiff company examined Sh. Ankit Jain as PW-1 who deposed on oath and reiterated the contents as made in the plaint and replication-cum-written statement. The said witness was not cross- examined by the defendant. Plaintiff has relied upon copy of Article of Association Ex.P1, abstract of the minute book/resolution Ex.P2, copy of the ledger showing balance of Rs.64,803/- as on 31.03.2008 Ex.P3, copy of demand letters sent to the defendant by the plaintiff by courier as Ex.P4 (3 Nos) (colly), courier receipts Ex.P5 (3 nos) (colly), copy of demand notice Ex.P6, postal receipt Ex.P7, UPC Ex.P8 and reply Ex.P9, covering letter Ex. P-10, copy of the returned sales tax form Ex.P11 and copy of the assessment of sales tax Ex.P12.
5. No evidence was led on behalf of the Defendant.
6. Arguments heard on behalf of both the parties. The entire record has been perused.
7. I shall now proceed to give issue-wise findings.
Suit no.92/09 Page no. 4 of 9 ISSUE No.1,3 & 4
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the principal amount of Rs.64,803/- from the defendant? OPP
2. Whether the debit note dated 10.04.08 for an amount of Rs. One lac was rightly issued by the defendant? (OPD)
3. Whether the defendant is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.36,995/- from the plaintiff in terms of his counter claim? (OPD)
8. All the above said issues are being decided together as they involve a common discussion.
a) The plaintiff company has filed the present suit for recovery through its authorized representative Sh. Ankit Jain, who appeared in the witness box and deposed as PW-1. The said witness proved the Board of Director's Resolution dated 11.02.2009 whereby he was authorized to institute the suit and depose in the court. He brought the original Minute Book and proved the abstract of minute book/resolution as Ex. P2. The Certificate of Incorporation of the plaintiff company was proved as P1.
b) The said witness i.e. PW-1 deposed that plaintiff company used to supply the goods to defendant company as per orders placed at Delhi and in this regard books of account were maintained. The copy of the ledger showing the balance due from the defendant company to the plaintiff company as Rs.64,803/- was proved as P3. The plaintiff sent various demand letters dated 13.07.2008, 19.08.2008 and 24.09.2008, which were proved as P-4 (colly) with courier receipts as P5 (colly). The said deposition has not been challenged by the defendant as PW-1 was never cross-examined and defendant did not lead any evidence.
c) The plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 24.12.2008 asking for
Suit no.92/09 Page no. 5 of 9
the recovery of Rs.64,803/- along with interest @ 24% p.a. from December 2007 till payment. The said notice is proved as P6 with postal receipt as P7, UPC as P8 and reply to the legal notice as P9. The said deposition has also not been challenged. Even otherwise the defendant in his written statement had admitted the receipt of said legal notice.
d) PW-1 also deposed that as soon as the inadvertent mistake of filling up the blank Sales Tax Form No.3497570 for supply of goods to M/s. Hotline Electronics (instead of the defendant) by the plaintiff company was detected, a letter dated 04.09.2007 owning up the inadvertence with apology and the unused Sales Tax Form was sent to the defendant with covering letter. The said covering letter was proved as P10 and the copy of Returned Sales Tax Form as P11.
e) PW-1 also deposed that the defendant never suffered any loss as depicted by the assessment of the Sales Tax for the relevant period, which was proved as P12.
f) Ld. Counsel for the defendant had filed certain judgments to prove that entries in the account books are not sufficient to charge any person with liability. The proposition of law on this issue is not disputed, though, it is not relevant for the purpose of the facts of this case. Another judgment titled A.M. Perumal Vs. Star Tours and Travels (India) Ltd., Criminal Petition no.1667 of 2007 of Kerala High Court has been filed to contend that electronics records have to be proved in evidence. The question of proving the electronics records under Section 65 B of the Evidence Act will not come into play as the said records/ledger in the present case was filed to prove the due amount of Rs.64,803/-. By making a counter-claim after adjusting the said amount, from total Suit no.92/09 Page no. 6 of 9 imposable fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, the defendant has impliedly admitted the due amount.
9. The onus to prove issue no.1 was on the plaintiff while defendant had to prove issue no.3 & 4. The plaintiff company had examined only one witness PW-1 Sh. Ankit Jain, whose testimony has remained unchallenged and unrebutted. The said was never cross-examined and the defendant never led any evidence. Thus, based upon the testimony of PW-1 itself, the case of the plaintiff is proved and concomitantly, the counter-claim of the defendant has not been proved.
10. a) However, it is significant to conceptualize the disputes between the plaintiff and defendant companies as argued by both the counsels vehemently.
b) During the course of arguments, it is admitted by the parties that the plaintiff had supplied the goods to the defendant. The defendant (at Noida, UP) is stated to have provided a blank sales tax form no.3497570 to the plaintiff in Delhi regarding the transaction of supply of the goods. This Sales Tax Form is issued in UP and it was given by defendant to plaintiff, who was supposed to fill it for this particular transaction and filled up form with invoices and goods were to be sent to the defendant. The plaintiff wrongly filled it up for transaction with M/s. Hotline Electronics but later on realized the mistake and sent an apology letter along with said Sales Tax Form to the defendant. The said Sales Tax Form was admittedly never used for any other transaction.
c) The contention of the ld. Counsel for the defendant is that since the said Sales Tax Form was filled up by the plaintiff, even inadvertently, for some transaction with M/s. Hotline Electronics instead of the Suit no.92/09 Page no. 7 of 9 defendant company, to whom it was given by the concerned Sales Tax Authority, the said violation can attract a maximum penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- at the discretion of Sales Tax Authority under the Sales Tax Law (neither party had filed or shown any such provision of law though both had admitted the legal provision).
d) It is not the case that the defendant had made the payment of Rs.64,803/- against the goods supplied by the plaintiff. It is argued that the said payment was withheld because the Sales Tax Authority could have imposed a maximum fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. The defendant further made a permutation and made a counter claim of balance amount.
e) The ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that the said Sales Tax Form was not misused and returned to the defendant. In any case, no monetary loss was caused.
The contention of the ld. Counsel of the plaintiff is cogent and compelling. Firstly, the goods were supplied to the defendant and the wrongly filled up Sales Tax Form was returned later on. Secondly, payment against the goods supplied by the plaintiff was never made by the defendant. Thirdly, no monetary loss was ever caused to the defendant. Fourthly, the defendant will not be legally correct in anticipating imposition of fine with exactitude (Rs.1,00,000/-) by the Sales Tax Authority (which admittedly has not been done for the last more than seven years) and then, in its discretionary exercise of prudence, withhold the payment of the plaintiff (Rs.64,803/-) and stretching beyond limit by making a counter-claim against the plaintiff for the balance amount of Rs.36,995/- which has never been asked for nor recovered from the defendant by the Sales Tax Authority.
Suit no.92/09 Page no. 8 of 9
7. In view of the above discussion, issue no.1,3 & 4 are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The plaintiff is entitled to recover the principal amount of Rs.64,803/- from the defendant.
8. Issue no. 2,5 & 6: -
In view of my findings on issue no.1,3 & 4, issue no.2,5 & 6 are decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant. Since it was a commercial transaction between the parties, the plaintiff is held entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.64,803/- from 24.12.2008 (date of legal notice) till realization. Relief: -
9. In view of the detailed discussions above, I hereby decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for an amount of Rs. 64,803/- (Rupees Sixty Four Thousand, eight hundred, three only) alongwith cost of the suit and counter-claim of the defendant is dismissed. The plaintiff is also entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.64,803/- from 24.12.2008 (date of legal notice) till realization.
10. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Thereafter, file be consigned to record room.
(Announced in the (Amitabh Rawat) Open Court on JSCC/ASCJ/GJ, Shahdara, 15.04.2015) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (This judgment contains 9 pages) Suit no.92/09 Page no. 9 of 9