Delhi District Court
Sanjeev Malhotra vs M/S. Spanco Bpo Services Ltd on 3 July, 2013
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUMIT DASS, ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL
JUDGE (NORTH WEST), ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Suit No. : 461/11
Sanjeev Malhotra
Proprietor of M/s. Ess Emm Ads
C4/58A, Keshavpuram,
Delhi110 035
...Plaintiff.
Versus
1.M/s. Spanco BPO Services Ltd.
Plot No. 9697, Udhyog Vihar,
PhaseIV, Gurgaon122 015
2.Deepak Sharma
HeadAdmn.
M/s. Spanco BPO Services Ltd.
Plot no. 9697, Udhyog Vihar,
PhaseIV, Gurgaon122 015.
...Defendant.
Date of Institution : 01.11.2011
Date of Arguments : 03.07.2013
Date of Judgment : 03.07.2013
Suit No. 461/11 Sanjeev Malhotra vs. M/s. Spanco BPO Services 1
2
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs. 79,019/
JUDGMENT:
1. The brief facts of the case are as under :
The plaintiff is the proprietor of M/s. Ess Emm Ads having its office at the above mentioned address and is dealing in the business of ID Cards services & accessories, ID Stickers, Lanyards and ID cards. The defendant no. 1 is a limited company under the name and style of M/s. Spanco BPO Services Ltd. at the above mentioned address and the defendant no.2 is the head of the administration of the company. The defendants placed orders to the petitioner for the lanyards (blue) no. 2422, ID Card holders nos. 600, ID Stickers nos. 804 and accordingly petitioner supplied the above ordered articles and raised bills vide sr. no. 1162 dt. 20.07.2010 forRs. 47,621/ and sr.no. 1163 dt. 20.07.2010 for Rs. 16,884/ and the said bills were duly received and acknowledged by the defendants. The defendants assured and promised to make the payment of the bills amount within a period of one week as per the terms and conditions but even after passing more than a year the defendants failed to make the payment of the said bills amount totaling Rs. 64,505/ despite numerous requests and demands of the petitioner telephonically and through Email etc. The defendants had committed breach of trust withholding the said due and outstanding amount of Rs. 64,505/ Suit No. 461/11 Sanjeev Malhotra vs. M/s. Spanco BPO Services 2 3 and as such the defendants were liable to pay interest @ 18% per annumn w.e.f. 20.07.2010 till realization on the said due and outstanding amount as per the terms and usage of the trade and clear stipulation on the said bills raised by the petitioner. The plaintiff had issued a legal notice dt. 14.09.2011 to the defendants under registered AD and courier through his advocate which was duly received by the defendants but no reply was elicited from the defendants. The defendants were hence, liable to pay an amount of Rs. 79,019/ (principal amount of Rs. 64,505 and Rs. 14,514/ as interest for the period from 20.07.2010 to 19.10.2011. Thus, the present suit.
2. The summons of suit were directed upon the defendants and the same were ultimately served upon the defendants through publication on 09.11.2012 in newspaper 'Rashtriya Sahara'. However, the defendants failed to appear and were proceeded exparte on 29.11.2012 by my Ld. Predecessor.
3. Plaintiff thereafter led its evidence and examined Sh. Sanjeev Malhotra, proprietor of M/s. Ess Emm Ads as PW1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/1 and also relied upon documents, i.e., bills Ex.PW1/A & Ex.PW1/B, Email sent to defendants Ex.PW1/C, legal notice Ex.PW1/D, postal receipt Ex.PW1/E and courier receipt Ex.PW1/F. PE was thereafter closed. Suit No. 461/11 Sanjeev Malhotra vs. M/s. Spanco BPO Services 3 4
4. Heard.
5. As the testimony of PW1 has remained unrebutted and unchallenged, in as much as the defendants have chosen not to participate and have opted to remain ex parte consequently, I have no reason to disbelieve the same. The suit is within time.
6. The plaintiff has sought presuit, pendente lite and future interest @ 18% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs. 64,505/. However, in my opinion the interest @ 12% p.a. would be fair and equitable. The interest is being awarded since the date of issuance of the legal notice i.e. 14.09.2011 till its realization. The interest is awarded at the rate of 12% lesser than the demanded rate of 18% for the reason that the clauses as mentioned in the Ex.PW1/A pertaining to interest on delayed payment are more or less to ensure the compliance of the agreement/compel the other party to maintain the time schedule/adhere to the payment aspect strictly. Such clauses are not the sole basis of claiming presuit interest. An important aspect needs to be noted that the suit has been filed against Deepak Sharma also who is the Head Administration. He has no role to play neither any decree can be passed against him in as much as the supply was made to the defendant no.1 which a corporate entity. Suit is not maintainable Suit No. 461/11 Sanjeev Malhotra vs. M/s. Spanco BPO Services 4 5 against defendant no.2 in his personal capacity as it is only a suit for recovery of money on account of goods supplied by plaintiff to defendant no.1.
7. Ordered accordingly. The suit of the plaintiff is accordingly decreed for a sum of Rs. 64,505/ along with interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. 14.09.2011 till realization against defendant no.1 only. Costs of the suit also awarded to the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open court (Sumit Dass)
on 03.07.2013 ACJCUMARC NORTHWEST
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
(This judgment contains five pages and each page bears my signature.) Suit No. 461/11 Sanjeev Malhotra vs. M/s. Spanco BPO Services 5 6 Suit No. 461/11 03.07.2013 Present: Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff Defendant is exparte.
PW1 is examined. PE is closed.
Final arguments have been heard.
Vide separate judgment of even date, suit of the plaintiff is decreed against defendant no.1. Suit is dismissed against defendant no.2. Costs of the suit are also awarded to the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.
(SUMIT DASS) ACJcumARC (North West) Rohini Courts, Delhi/ 03.07.2013 Suit No. 461/11 Sanjeev Malhotra vs. M/s. Spanco BPO Services 6