Bangalore District Court
M/S Seawings Shipings Company vs M/S Bennett Coleman & Co.Ltd on 8 December, 2017
THE COURT OF THE XXXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY
Dated this the 8th Day of December 2017
Present
Sri Devanand Puttappa Nayak B.A., LL.B.,(Spl.)
XXXVIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,Bangalore City.
Original Suit No.2358/2012
Plaintiffs:
M/s Seawings Shipings Company,
represented by its Proprietor Sri Jayaram,
S/o Kunnappa, aged about 49 years, No.13,
1st Cross, N.R.Colony, Murugeshpalya, Old
Airport road, (Opp: Kemp Fort) Bangalore-
560 017
[by advocate Sri V.H]
V/s.
Defendants:
1. M/s Bennett Coleman & Co.Ltd., No.7,
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, ITO Post, New
Delhi-110 001. represented by its
Managing Director
2. M/s Bennett Coleman & Co.Ltd., Times of
India Group-Wipro Building, No.40/1, II
Floor, S & B Tower, M.G.Road, Bangalore-
560 001, represented by its Branch Head.
[by advocate Sri V.L.]
2 O.S.No.2358/2012
Date of Institution of
: 12/03/2012
the suit
Nature of suit
: Money suit
Date of commencement
of Evidence : 03/06/2014
Date on which the
judgment is pronounced : 08/12/2017
Duration taken for Years Months Days
: 05 08 26
disposal
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff Company represented by its Proprietor, against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.11,37,907/- along with interest at 18% p.a. and costs.
2. As per the plaint averments, it is the case of the Plaintiff company represented by its Proprietor that the defendant No.1 is a registered company, having its Principal office at New Delhi. The 2nd defendant is the branch office of 1st defendant at Bangalore. The transactions between plaintiff and defendants were held at Bangalore.
3 O.S.No.2358/2012The plaintiff further submits that on the request made by the defendants, the plaintiff has rendered service of transportation of containers Cargo with allied services and also provided the service of custom house clearing agency to the defendants. There is contract entered into between plaintiff and defendants and renewed once in a year. The plaintiff has deposited refundable security deposit of Rs.2 lakhs with the defendants. The defendants have acknowledged the receipt of said security amount.
It is further submitted by the plaintiff that the plaintiff has provided good service to the defendants from past several years without any default. For the service rendered to the defendants, the plaintiff has raised bills and invoices. But the defendants have withheld some payments which are liable to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff. The plaintiff also assisted the defendants to get refund of the huge amount held up with the customs Department. In spite of several letters, E-mails and personal requests by the plaintiff, the defendants 4 O.S.No.2358/2012 failed to clear the due amount. The defendants deliberately have taken nearly two years without settling the dues of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff further submits that on calculating the total dues from the defendants to the plaintiff, the plaintiff is due to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- towards security deposit; Rs.4,49,841/- towards outstanding bills for the year 2006-07; Rs.2,15,974/- towards Ground Rent paid to CONCOR from January 2008 to September 2008; Rs.92,092/- towards Debit Note 1/2008-09 and Rs.1,50,000/- towards service charges for Customs Refund issue including expenses incurred and hence the defendants are due to the tune of Rs.11,37,907/- to the plaintiff as on 1.1.2012 and also liable to pay interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of suit. The plaintiff sent final reminder to the defendants on 1.1.2012 demanding settlement of the entire due amount to the tune of Rs.11,37,907/-. But the defendants have not issued any reply to the said 5 O.S.No.2358/2012 reminder and also not paid the due amount so far. Hence the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit.
It is further submitted by the plaintiff that the cause of action arose for filing of the suit on 1.1.2011. Since the transactions were held at Bangalore, this Court has jurisdiction to try the case. The suit is filed well within time. The requisite Court Fee is paid. Hence the plaintiff company represented by its Proprietor has prayed this court to decree the suit as prayed in prayer column of the plaint.
3. On the other hand, the defendants No.1 and 2 filed written statement. In the written statement, the defendants took contention that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed. Moreover, the contention of the defendants is that the Managing Director of the Plaintiff's Company does not have any role in day-to-day business of the company, therefore the suit filed by the Plaintiff's Company is devoid of merits.
6 O.S.No.2358/2012The defendants denied all the allegations made in all paras of the plaint as false and untrue. The defendants further submit that after lapse of considerable time, the Plaintiff's Company got issued legal notice on 1.1.2012 against the defendants.
It is submitted by the defendants that the defendants engaged the Plaintiff as a Customs Clearing Agent to provide services of the customs clearance of the goods imported by the defendants in the course of their business and for transportation of imported newsprint in containers from ICD, Bangalore to its various Presses in the city. The last of the said Contract was effective from 1st May 2006 till 31st July 2007. However, on account of delay in clearance of consignments caused due to the gross negligence of the plaintiff, the demurrages became applicable to the defendants and subsequently debited Plaintiff's account in terms of the contractual obligations undertaken by the plaintiff. Further the said 7 O.S.No.2358/2012 contract ceased to be in effect on 31.7.2009 when the said Contract was terminated in writing by the defendants.
Further it is submitted by the defendants that the security amount of Rs.2 lakhs deposited by the Plaintiff's Company with the defendants was adjusted against the losses caused due to deficiency in service provided by the Plaintiff's Company to the defendants in accordance with the aforesaid contract.
The defendants further submit that due to gross negligence, deficiency in service and wrongful advice by the Plaintiff's Company, the defendants had to pay an excess customs duty of Rs.21,61,129/- and were able to recover the said expenses only through protracted litigation for which an additional legal expenses amounting to Rs.3,52,000/- had to be incurred. In fact, the Plaintiff's Company is liable to pay/reimburse the said legal expenses of Rs.3,52,000/- together with interest calculated at the rate of 18% p.a. on the 8 O.S.No.2358/2012 amount of Rs.21,61,129/- being the sum of excess duty paid from 1.2.2006 till 31.10.2008, which alone works out to Rs.13,84,947/-. After adjusting the demurrages cost and giving the plaintiff the benefit of Rs.32,792/-, a balance of Rs.13,52,155/- is liable to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants.
However the defendants not admitted their liability to pay any amount including security deposit, outstanding bills for the year 2006-07, ground rent paid to CONCOR for January 2008-09 and service charges for customs refund and expenses aggregating to Rs.11,37,907/- to the Plaintiff's Company as alleged. On the contrary, it is the Plaintiff's Company, who has to pay to the defendants a sum of Rs.13,52,155/- for providing unprofessional and wrongful advice and for the additional interest on excess payment made to customs department due to improper advice rendered by the plaintiff to the defendants. 9 O.S.No.2358/2012
The defendants denied the allegations made at Para Nos.1 to 7 as false and untrue. But in para 12(f)(ii) of written statement, it is submitted by the defendants that security deposit of Rs.2 lakhs was adjusted against the losses caused due to deficiency in service provided by the Plaintiff's Company to the defendants in accordance with the aforesaid contract.
In para 12(g)(ii), it is submitted by the defendants that the outstanding Bills amount of Rs.4,79,841/- of the year 2006-07, was agreed to have been settled by the defendants as transpired during a series of meetings with the Plaintiff's Company wherein the Plaintiff's Company had unconditionally furnished a written communication to the effect that they thereby withdraw the subject claim of Rs.4,79,841/- as he was left with no proof of any small and suspected pending payment. This fact had duly been endorsed by the defendants in the presence of 10 O.S.No.2358/2012 Plaintiff's Company in the Minutes of Meeting held on 24.3.2009 followed by a letter dt.25.3.2009.
Further at para 12(g)(iii) of the written statement, it is submitted by the defendants that the claim made by the Plaintiff's Company for Ground Rent paid to CONCOR of Rs.2,15,974/- is neither legal or ethical bearing, since these were the penal charges paid by the Plaintiff's Company for their inefficiencies in late clearing of the consignments. The defendants had provided timely duty-payment, documents and information to the Plaintiff's Company, but the Plaintiff's Company failed to clear the consignment in time and hence the defendants cannot be held liable for penal charges levied on the Plaintiff's Company for delivering its minimum expected services to the defendants, as per the Contract.
In para 12(g)(iv) of the written statement, the defendants denied the claim made by the Plaintiff's Company for Rs.92,092/- towards Debit Note 1/2008-09 and submits that as per the record 11 O.S.No.2358/2012 maintained by the defendants, the actual claim amount is Rs.32,792/- and the Plaintiff's Company is not entitled to the balance amount since the free period of 10 days for clearing the marked containers was exhausted by the Plaintiff's Company due to delay at their end.
At para 12(g)(v) of the written statement, the defendants denied their liability to pay service charges of Rs.1,50,000/- for Customs Refund issue including expenses incurred and further submit that due to gross negligence, deficiency in service and wrongful advice by the Plaintiff's Company, the defendants had to pay an excess customs duty of Rs.21,61,129/- and were able to recover the said expenses only through protracted litigation for which an additional legal expenses amounting to Rs.3,52,000/- had to be incurred. In fact, the Plaintiff's Company is liable to pay/reimburse the said legal expenses of Rs.3,52,000/- together with interest calculated at the rate of 18% p.a. on the amount of 12 O.S.No.2358/2012 Rs.21,61,129/- being the sum of excess duty paid from 1.2.2006 till 31.10.2008, which alone works out to Rs.13,84,947/-. After adjusting the demurrages cost and giving the plaintiff the benefit of Rs.32,792/-, a balance of Rs.13,52,155/- is liable to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants.
Further it is submitted by the defendants that the plaintiff is solely responsible for the loss incurred to the defendants due to delay, incompetence, negligence and deficiency in services on the part of the plaintiffs, whereby the defendants had to incur innumerable loss and expenditure to their business.
It is further submitted by the defendants that there is no cause of action arose for the suit and hence prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
4. On perusing the pleadings of the plaint and also written statements filed by the defendants, my predecessor has framed in all three Issues on 13 O.S.No.2358/2012 21.01.2013 and this Court has framed one additional Issues on 25.10.2017 as follows:-
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.11,37,907/- as on 1.1.2012 with costs and interest as alleged in the plaint?
2. To what reliefs the plaintiff is entitled?
3. What order or decree?
Addl.Issue framed on 25.10.2017 Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation?
5. In this case the Proprietor of Plaintiff's Company adduced his oral evidence by way of filing sworn affidavit as PW1 and in further chief examination of PW1, the documents produced by him are got marked as Ex.P1 to P30. In the cross-examination of PW1, Ex.D1 to D3 are marked. On the other hand, one Sandeep Koul, who is authorized by defendants has adduced his oral evidence as DW1 by filing sworn affidavit in lieu of chief examination and the documents produced by him are marked as Ex.D4 to D9 and closed the side of plaintiff and defendants. 14 O.S.No.2358/2012
6. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the written arguments submitted by both sides and the case is posted for judgment.
7. My findings on the above Issues are as follows:
Issue No.1: Partly in the affirmative Issue No.2: Partly in the affirmative Addl.Issue: In the negative Issue No.3: As per final order, for the following:
REASONS ISSUE NOs.1 and 2:
8. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff Company represented by its Proprietor, against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.11,37,907/- along with interest at 18% p.a. and costs.
9. On perusing the plaint averments, it is the case of the Plaintiff's Company represented by its Proprietor that the plaintiff is rendering service of transportation of containers Cargo with allied services. On the request made by the defendants, the plaintiff has rendered service of transportation of 15 O.S.No.2358/2012 containers Cargo along with the service of customs clearance. To that effect there is a Contract entered into between plaintiff and defendants, which is renewed once in a year. The plaintiff has deposited refundable security deposit of Rs.2 lakhs with the defendants. The defendants have acknowledged the receipt of said security amount. Here, it is the contention of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has provided good service to the defendants from past several years without any default and for the service rendered to the defendants, the plaintiff has raised bills and invoices, but however the defendants have withheld some payments which are liable to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff. It is also the contention of the plaintiff that the plaintiff also assisted the defendants to get refund of the huge amount held up with the customs Department and the said service is provided by the plaintiff to the defendants in time, but the defendants have not paid the money for the services rendered by the Plaintiff's Company in spite of several letters, E-mails and 16 O.S.No.2358/2012 personal requests by the plaintiff to clear the dues of the plaintiff with interest and the defendants deliberately withheld the amount without settling the dues of the plaintiff and even not given the job works. So, it is the case of the plaintiff that on calculating the total dues from the defendants to the plaintiff, there is due to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- towards security deposit; Rs.4,49,841/- towards outstanding bills for the year 2006-07; Rs.2,15,974/- towards Ground Rent paid to CONCOR from January 2008 to September 2008; Rs.92,092/- towards Debit Note 1/2008-09 and Rs.1,50,000/- towards service charges for Customs Refund including expenses incurred.
10. Here, in order to prove the money due from the defendants, the Proprietor of the Plaintiff's Company adduced his oral evidence by way of filing his sworn affidavit in lieu of chief examination considered as PW1 and in further chief examination of PW1, the documents produced by him are got marked as Ex.P1 17 O.S.No.2358/2012 to P30. Here from the written statement, as well as in the oral evidence of DW1 and in the cross- examination of PW1, it is proved that as per Ex.P1 and Ex.D1 there was a Contract in between plaintiff and defendants with regard to the transportation and delivery of imported newsprint in containers from ICD, Bangalore to its various Presses in and around the city. As per Ex.D1, the Contract was renewed from 25.2.2003 to 31.10.2004. But as per Ex.P1, the said Contract was again renewed from 1.5.2006 to 31.6.2007. Here the Plaintiff's Company deposited security amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as per Ex.P2. This fact is also admitted in the cross-examination of DW1. But in the cross-examination of DW1, it has come out that the said security amount of Rs.2 lakhs deposited by the Plaintiff's Company has been adjusted to the losses caused due to the deficiency in the service provided by the Plaintiff's Company. Here the defendants have not produced any document as to show what was the deficiency in the services rendered and gross negligence of the plaintiff, which 18 O.S.No.2358/2012 caused loss to the defendants and demurrages as alleged in the written statement and also in the evidence of DW1. So here there is no such document as to prove that the security deposit amount deposited by the Plaintiff's Company has been adjusted to the loss caused due to the deficiency in service rendered by the Plaintiff's Company. This goes to show that the amount of Rs.2 lakhs as a security deposit deposited by the Plaintiff's Company is not repaid by the defendants.
11. Here in the cross-examination of PW1, it goes to show that the bills and invoices are maintained by the Plaintiff's Company. These Bills and Invoices produced by PW1 are marked as Ex.P8 to P29. Here the defendants have engaged the Plaintiff's Company as a Customs Clearing Agent to provide services of the customs clearance of the goods imported by the defendants in the course of their business and for transportation of imported newsprint in containers from ICD, Bangalore to its various Presses in the city. 19 O.S.No.2358/2012 Further in the cross-examination of DW1, he also admitted that the Plaintiff's Company was carrying the work of Customs Clearing Agency and transportation of imported newsprint in containers.
12. Here in the cross-examination of DW1 at page 10, he also admitted that the plaintiff has to render service of clearance of the customs duty. Here, though DW1 in his cross-examination deposed that they have paid amount for having imported and exported goods to different places, but here on perusing the documents produced by DW1 i.e., Ex.D1 to D9, no such document has been produced as to establish that the defendants paid the cost of consultancy service to the Plaintiff's Company for having imported and exported and goods from one place to other place, as entrusted by the defendant to the Plaintiff's Company. In the cross-examination of DW1 at page 13 he admitted that no such document has been produced as to establish that the defendants paid the customs duty to the Plaintiff's 20 O.S.No.2358/2012 Company for having imported and exported the goods from one place to other place, as entrusted by the defendant to the Plaintiff's Company. In the cross- examination of DW1 at page 13 he admitted that the Plaintiff's Company has rendered advice and consultancy service in the case pending before the Customs Office in Customs Appeal No.405/2007. So here it is due to the fault of the defendants, they have paid excess duty to the customs office without taking advice of the Plaintiff's Company. Therefore, in the cross-examination of DW1 at page 13, it is unequivocally admitted that they took the advice of the Plaintiff's Company for clearance of the customs duty. Hence the excess customs duty paid due to fault by the defendants was refunded i.e., an amount of Rs.21,61,129/-.
13. Here, DW1 in his cross-examination voluntarily admitted that the Plaintiff's Company has borne the expenses of advocate's fee for giving consultancy in Customs Appeal No.405/2007. Here in the cross- 21 O.S.No.2358/2012 examination of DW1 at page 15, he deposed that as per the contention took in the chief examination at para 10, no expenses paid with regard to alleged demurrages caused by the negligence of the Plaintiff's Company. The defendants, in the written statement at para 5, alleged that there is deficiency in the service rendered by the Plaintiff's Company for which there is delay in clearance of consignment and also demurrages. Therefore, admissions in the cross- examination of DW1 goes to show that the defendants have not paid ground rent paid to CONCOR from January 2008 to September 2008. Here in the cross-examination of DW1,he admitted that as per Ex.D3, the amount mentioned in column 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f' and 'h' has not paid and there is no document produced by DW1 as to prove that the defendants have paid all the amount as mentioned in Ex.D3. Here in the cross-examination of DW1 at para 16, he admitted that the ground rent paid by the Plaintiff's Company is not repaid by the defendants. The admissions in the cross-examination of DW1 22 O.S.No.2358/2012 itself goes to show that the defendants have not paid the charges for transportation of exported and imported goods belongs to the defendants. It is also proved that the defendants have not paid Rs.2 lakhs which was deposited by the Plaintiff's Company and it is also refundable amount. There is no rebuttal evidence to disprove the Bills and Invoices i.e., Ex.P8 to P29. Here, Ex.P30 is the letter of requests submitted by the Plaintiff's Company to the Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore for issue of certified copies of Ex.P8 to P30. Accordingly the Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore has issued certified copies of Ex.P8 to P29 which are the Bills and Invoices. On perusing Ex.P8 to P29 there is due amount of Concor charges, customs duty, documentation charges and repackage charges. As per Ex.D3, the bill number and invoice number has been mentioned in respect of Ex.P8 to P29. So here on perusing the documentary evidence and also admissions in the cross-examination of DW1, itself proved that the defendants have to pay the ground 23 O.S.No.2358/2012 rent paid to the Concor and also customs duty and charges of consignment and also consultancy service rendered by the Plaintiff's Company.
14. Here the contention of the defendants is that the plaintiff has not impleaded M/s Manjunath Shipping Pvt.Ltd.,, since on the basis of the license of said Manjunath Shipping Pvt.Ltd.,, the Plaintiff's Company is giving service of customs clearance and transportation of imported and exported containers and also other charges like ground rent paid to the Concur. On perusing the cross-examination of PW1, he admitted that as per Ex.P2, amount of Rs.2 lakh was deposited by Manjunatha Shipping Pvt.Ltd. But here it is only the transaction or correspondence held in between Plaintiff's Company and said Manjunatha Shipping Pvt.Ltd. Therefore, under these circumstances, it is not necessary to implead said Manjunatha Shipping Pvt.Ltd. in this case and hence the suit filed by the plaintiff is not bad for necessary parties.
24 O.S.No.2358/2012
15. Here in the cross-examination of PW1, he deposed that some times the containers were dumping at different places like Bommasandra, Gigani, Rajajinagar and Peenya. So the defendants have to pay the ground rent for the concors. PW1 has produced Ex.P8 to P29, goes to show that the Plaintiff's Company itself has cleared the customs duty. Hence there was no any loss caused to the defendants while clearing the customs duty. Here excess customs duty paid by defendants i.e., Rs.21,61,129/- has been returned by the Customs Clearance Department only on the advise and consultancy of the Plaintiff's Company which made it convenient for the defendants for returning the said excess amount paid to the Customs Duty Department. Therefore, the defendants ought to have paid fee for the consultancy service rendered by the Plaintiff's Company for which the excess paid customs duty amount of Rs.21,61,129/- was returned by the Customs Clearance Department. 25 O.S.No.2358/2012
16. Here as per Ex.P2, M/s Manjunatha Shipping Pvt.Ltd. has requested to return the security deposit amount of Rs.2 lakhs. In Ex.P2 it is mentioned that Rs.2 lakhs is refundable security deposit. So this goes to show that as per Ex.P2 the defendants have not acted upon and not returned the security amount of Rs.2 lakhs deposited. Here the suggestions suggested in the cross-examination of PW1 at page 10 and 11, reveals that the defendants 1 and 2 asked for the Plaintiff's Company that as per the e-mail dt.4.6.2009, the claim amount in respect of present suit shall be bifurcated. This suggestion itself goes to show that the defendants 1 and 2 have not paid the ground rent paid to the Concor and not paid for the service rendered in respect of transportation of imported and exported consignment belong to defendants 1 and 2. In addition to that defendants 1 and 2 have not paid consultancy fee to the service rendered by the Plaintiff's Company in Customs Duty Appeal No.405/2007. Here in the cross-examination of PW1 at page 11 reveals that the defendants ought 26 O.S.No.2358/2012 to have paid service charges of Rs.1,50,000/- to the Plaintiff's Company for having consultancy services in the above said Appeal No.405/2007. Therefore, the Plaintiff's Company proved that defendants No.1 and 2 are liable to pay Rs.11,37,907/-.
17. Here the Plaintiff's Company prayed for imposing rate of interest at 18% p.a. on the due amount of Rs.11,37,907/-. But here there is no any contractual agreement in between Plaintiff's Company and the defendants regarding the payment of interest if any due amount remained to be paid by the defendants. But here the amount due to be paid by the defendants is not pertaining to commercial transaction. It is only the due amount to be paid by the side of the defendants for the services rendered by the Plaintiff's Company. Therefore, the Plaintiff's Company is not entitled to rate of interest at 18% p.a. on the amount claimed in prayer column of the plaint. Therefore the Court has got discretionary power for imposing rate of interest on the due 27 O.S.No.2358/2012 amount if the transaction is not related to commercial purpose. Hence u/s 34 of C.P.C. the Plaintiff's Company is entitled to rate of interest at 6% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.11,37,907/- due from the defendants. Hence I answered Issue Nos.1 and 2 partly in the affirmative.
ADDITIONAL ISSUE
18. Here in the written statement filed by the defendants, it is the main contention took with regard to limitation of filing of this suit. In para 5 of the written statement, the defendants stated that last contract was effective from 1.5.2006 till 31.7.2007. But again in the same para, it is pleaded by the defendants that the said contract ceased to be in effect from 31.7.2009 when the said contract was terminated in writing by the defendants. Here this suit is filed on 30.3.2012. The Notice got issued to the defendants on 10.11.2009. So here from the date of issue of notice on 10.11.2009, the suit is filed within three years. Therefore the suit filed by the 28 O.S.No.2358/2012 Plaintiff's Company is within limitation. Further in the cross-examination of PW1, it is suggested by the counsel for the defendants at para 11 and the same is admitted by PW1 that on 4.6.2009, defendants 1 and 2 have sent e-mail regarding bifurcation of the claim amount of the present suit. Here taking into consideration the suggestions with regard to e-mail message sent to the Plaintiff's Company by the defendants, it goes to show that the suit filed by the Plaintiff's Company against the defendants for recovery of money due is within three years. Hence in this case, the documentary evidence and also suggestions suggested by the counsel for the defendants in page 11 of the cross-examination of PW1, itself sufficient to establish that the suit filed by the Plaintiff's Company is within limitation i.e., within three years. Hence I answered Additional Issue in the Negative.
ISSUE NO.3
19. In this case, the Plaintiff's Company relying on the oral evidence of PW1 and the documentary evidence 29 O.S.No.2358/2012 Ex.P1 to P30 and relying on the cross-examination of DW1 proved that there is due amount of Rs.11,37,907/- from the defendants. On the other hand, the defendants utterly failed to prove that the Plaintiff's Company is liable to pay legal expenses of Rs.3,52,000/- together with interest calculated at the rate of 18% p.a. on the amount of Rs.21,61,129/- being the excess duty paid to the Customs Department. The defendants also failed to establish that there is deficiency in service rendered by the Plaintiff's Company for which the demurrages caused, has to be given by the Plaintiff's Company. Here the admissions in the cross-examination of DW1 with regard to Ex.P8 to P29 which are mentioned on Ex.D3, itself goes to show that the defendants have not paid to the Plaintiff's Company with regard to service rendered in respect of import and export of consignment and also ground rent paid to the Concor and consultancy service rendered by the Plaintiff's Company. Therefore, the Plaintiff's Company is entitled to recover the amount of 30 O.S.No.2358/2012 Rs.11,37,907/- from the defendants. Hence, on the above discussion and observation made on Issue Nos.1 and 2, and additional Issue, this Court proceeds to pass the following order:-
ORDER Suit filed by the plaintiff is hereby decreed for sum of Rs.11,37,907/-(Rupees Eleven Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Seven only) with costs.
Further the Plaintiff's Company is entitled rate of interest at 6% p.a. on the due amount of Rs.11,37,907/- from the date of suit till realization.
It is directed to the defendants to repay the due amount of Rs.11,37,907/- with interest at 6% p.a. to the Plaintiff's Company within three months from the date of this Order.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 8th day of December 2017) (DEVANAND PUTTAPPA NAYAK) XXXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,Bangalore City.31 O.S.No.2358/2012
ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined for plaintiff:
P.W.1 K.Jayaram
2. List of documents exhibited for plaintiff :
Ex.P1 Renewal of annual contract
along with annexure-1 and 2
Ex.P2 Letter regarding security deposit
of Rs.2,00,000/- dt.1.2.2001
Ex.P3 Provisional receipt dt.1.12.2001
Ex.P4 Contract Order dt.23.10.2003
Ex.P5 Letter by defendants to Customs
office
Ex.P6 Letter from defendants to plaintiff
Ex.P.7 Letter to defendants from Sri
Manjunatha Shipping Pvt Ltd.,
Ex.P.8 Certified copies of Invoices
to P29
Ex.P30 Letter of requests submitted by
Plaintiff's Company to Assistant
Commissioner of Service Tax
3. List of witnesses examined for defendant:
DW1 Sandeep Koul
3. List of documents exhibited for defendant: 32 O.S.No.2358/2012
Ex.D1 Contract
Ex.D2 Letter dt.25.3.2009
Ex.D2(a) Signature of PW1
}
Ex.D3 Letter showing outstanding
amount
Ex.D4 Board resolution of the
defendant
Ex.D5 Computer generated printout
Ex.D6 e-mail correspondence made by
the defendant
Ex.D7 Computer printout pertains to
the statement of ground rent of
defendant company
Ex.D8 Reply notice dt.11.4.2012
Ex.D9 C.D.
XXXVIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,Bangalore City.