Delhi District Court
Lexla Energy India Pvt Ltd vs Ms Suprabhat Electrict Co Pvt Ltd on 30 September, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA
DISTRICT JUDGE(COMMERCIAL)-07(CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
CS (Comm.) No. 1154/2023
CNR No. DLCT010106922023
DLCT010106922023
M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. Pvt. Ltd.,
Through its Director,
Shri Shwetank Aggarwal
1741, Dariba Kalan,
Chandni Chowk,
Delhi-110006.
Mobile No. 09811323232
Email id: [email protected].
......Plaintiff/Respondent.
Vs
M/s Lexla Energy India Private Limited,
A-227, Ground Floor,
Kaushambi, Sector-14,
Behind Redisson Blue Hotel,
Ghaziabad-201010 (UP).
Mob. No. 9354695813
EmailID: [email protected],
[email protected]
...... Defendant/Counter-Claimant.
Digitally
signed by
MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR
GUPTA
GUPTA
Date:
2024.10.01
AND
17:23:32
+0530
CS (Comm.) No.1154/2023 M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Page no. 1 of 46
Counter Claim No.11/2024 M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd.
Counter Claim No.11/2024
CNR No. DLCT010026372024
M/s Lexla Energy India Private Limited,
A-227, Ground Floor,
Kaushambi, Sector-14,
Behind Redisson Blue Hotel,
Ghaziabad-201010 (UP).
Mob. No. 9354695813
EmailID: [email protected],
[email protected] ......Counter-Claimant/defendant
Vs.
M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. Pvt. Ltd.,
Through its Director,
Shri Shwetank Aggarwal
1741, Dariba Kalan,
Chandni Chowk,
Delhi-110006.
Mobile No. 09811323232
Email id: [email protected].
......Respondent/Plaintiff.
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 71, 90,085/-.
And
COUNTER CLAIM FOR RECOVERY OF RS.26,83,654/-
Date of institution of suit : 05.08.2023
Date of institution of counter claim : 21.02.2024
First Date before this court : 22.04.2024
Date of hearing of final argument : 24.09.2024
Date of Judgment : 00.00.2024
Digitally signed
by MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
Appearance(s) : Mr. Amit Goel, Adv. & Ms. Deepali Mittal, Adv. for
GUPTA
KUMAR Date: plaintiff/Respondent.
GUPTA 2024.10.01
17:23:43
+0530 Shri Rakesh Kumar Shukla, Ld. Counsels for the
defendant/counter claimant.
CS (Comm.) No.1154/2023 M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Page no. 2 of 46
Counter Claim No.11/2024 M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd.
JUDGMENT
(A) PRELUDE:
1. By way of the present common judgment, I shall conscientiously adjudicate upon plaintiff's suit for Recovery of Rs.71,90,085/- alongwith interest @ 2% per month (24% per annum) pendentlite and future from the date of filing of suit till its realisation AND the defendant/counter claimant's claim for recovery of Rs.26,83,654/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of suit till the date of realisation. The parties have also prayed for their respective costs of the suit/counter claim filed against each other.
SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF
(B) PLAINTIFF'S CASE
2. Eschewing prolix reference to the pleadings crystallizing the same the plaintiff has averred in the plaint that:-
2.1) It is a private limited company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 1741, Dariba Kalan, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 and is engaged in the business of sale and supply of all types of electrical goods i.e. cables wires and components.
The present suit has been filed by Shri Shwetank Aggarwal, the director of the plaintiff's company who has been duly authorized to file, sign, and verify the plaint and do all the needful in the matter vide Board Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR Resolution dated 20.03.2023.
GUPTA KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2024.10.01 17:23:51 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.1154/2023 M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Page no. 3 of 46 Counter Claim No.11/2024 M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd.
2.2) The defendant is a Private Limited Company also incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 on 20.02.2014 vide CIN No. U40108UP2014PTC062089 having its registered office at A-227, Ground Floor, Kaushambi, Sector-14, behind Redisson Blue Hotel, Gaziabad, UP-201010 and engaged in the business of wholesale trading of various type of cables, wires other electrical items/equipment.
2.3) In the month of October, 2022, the defendant company approached the plaintiff company for purchase of various types of cables and wires. The plaintiff as per the purchase orders of the defendant started supplying the goods to the defendant from time to time. As per the terms of payment mentioned in the purchase order, the defendant company was required to make 100% payment within 60 days after receipt & inspection of supplied material at site.
2.4) The plaintiff company supplied goods to the defendant company worth of Rs.1,01,90,185/- (Rupees One Crore One Lac Ninety Thousand One Hundred Eighty Five Only) uptil 22.11.2022 against three purchase Orders placed by the defendant company and once the goods were duly inspected and unloaded by the defendant company at their site, the plaintiff company raised the following invoices:
S. No. Date Invoice No. Amount (In Rs.)
1. 17.10.2022 SEC/1004/22-23 45,69,031/-
2. 31.10.2022 SEC/1056/22-23 3,16,346/-
Digitally signed
3. 22.11.2022 SEC/1196/22-23 53,04,808/-
by MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
GUPTA
KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2024.10.01
17:24:00
+0530
CS (Comm.) No.1154/2023 M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Page no. 4 of 46
Counter Claim No.11/2024 M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. 2.5) The defendant has made part payment of Rs.15,00,000/- on 04.01.2023 against first two invoices as per agreed payment terms of 60 days, out of total payment of Rs.48,85,377/- leaving a balance of Rs.33,85,377/- which the plaintiff has demanded but defendant avoided the same on one pretext or the other. Similarly, on 22.01.2023, payment against third invoice also became due on expiry of 60 days but the same was not made by the defendant also.
2.6) The plaintiff has made several request to the defendant through telephonic calls as well as repeated e-mails reminders on 24.01.2023, 27.01.2023, 30.01.2023, 02.01.2023 and 04.01.2023 but the defendant company has failed to respond to the same. Finally, on 24.02.2023, the defendant company made a further part payment of Rs.15,00,000/- out of total outstanding amount of Rs.86,90,185/- thereby leaving an outstanding amount of Rs.71,90,185/-. The plaintiff again reminded the defendant for payment of outstanding amount through several telephonic calls, e-mail reminders as well as WhatsApp messages, however, despite the aforesaid the payment of plaintiff company was not released which according to plaintiff indicates clear malafide of the defendant company.
2.7) Finally the plaintiff was compelled to issue a legal notice dated 24.03.2023 through its advocate sent by registered speed post and e-mail calling upon the defendant company to pay the amount with interest @ 18% per annum which was duly served upon the defendant and in response thereto the defendant sent a reply dated 21.04.2023 Digitally MUKESH signed by MUKESH KUMAR through their counsel denying their liability to make the payment of KUMAR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.10.01 17:24:10 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.1154/2023 M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Page no. 5 of 46 Counter Claim No.11/2024 M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd.
amount due to the plaintiff company and raising a false and frivolous ground that except goods worth of Rs.3,16,346/-, no other goods were received by the defendant company. As per the averments made, the defendant company has failed to pay the outstanding amount .
2.8) The plaintiff has claimed cause of action on the date of purchase order, supply of goods to the defendant, raising of invoices, making part payment by the defendant and finally on issuance of legal notice which was also responded to by way of reply dated 21.04.2023.
Hence the present suit for recovery of Rs.71,90,185/- with interest and costs.
(C) DEFENDANT'S CASE:-
3. On receipt of summons for settlement of issues, the defendant not only contested the suit by filing a detailed Written Statement but also filed a Counter claim for a sum of Rs.26,83,654/- thereby taking various preliminary objections claiming that :-
3.1) The suit of the plaintiff is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC as the same has been filed without any cause of action against the defendant company as goods have not been supplied to the defendant as per the placed Purchase Orders. The defendant has denied the liability towards the plaintiff and claimed that the plaintiff has supplied the material worth of Rs. 3,16,346/- only out of the orders placed for materials worth of Rs.1,04,41,230/-. Accordingly, the Digitally signed MUKESH by MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2024.10.01 17:24:25 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.1154/2023 M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Page no. 6 of 46 Counter Claim No.11/2024 M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. defendant is entitled for recovery of Rs.26,83,654/- from the plaintiff on account of excessive payment made in anticipation. It is admitted that defendant has made payment of Rs.30,00,000/- against supply of the materials only under invoice dated 13.10.2022, thus defendant is seeking liberty of this court to file the counter suit to the extent of excessive payment made by the defendant to the plaintiff.
3.2) It has further been contended that this court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit as representative of the OEM ( Original Equipment Manufacturer Bonton) had approached the defendant at its office situated in Ghaziabad UP, where POs were obtained by the Official of the OEM and handed over to the plaintiff whereafter supply of the materials was to be made at the defendant place at Ghaziabad, UP . It is further contended that the suit of the plaintiff has not been filed by a duly authorised person as alleged board resolution is forged & fabricated. It has further been claimed that the plaintiff has misused the process of law by filing the present frivolous suit.
3.3) It has further been averred that in response of misconceived demand legal notice dated 24.03.2023 of the plaintiff, defendant has made reply dated 21.04.2023 through its counsel thereby raising true and correct facts, but the plaintiff despite the aforesaid has chosen to file this false and frivolous suit for recovery of the amount which defendant is not Digitally liable to pay as goods under alleged invoices have not been received to signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR the defendant.
KUMAR GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2024.10.01
17:24:36
+0530
CS (Comm.) No.1154/2023 M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Page no. 7 of 46
Counter Claim No.11/2024 M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd.
3.4) On merits, all the allegations made in the plaint are denied as incorrect and it has been contended by the defendant that Mr. Shwetank Aggarwal has not been duly authorised to sign or verify or file the present plaint or to sign the Vakalatnama on behalf of the plaintiff company. It has also been denied that plaintiff company supplied goods to the defendant company worth of Rs.1,01,90,185/- as alleged against three purchase orders rather the defendant had placed only two purchase orders against which goods worth Rs.3,16,346/- only has been received by the defendant.
3.5) It has further been denied that alleged goods were inspected by the defendant company at site as no goods were ever supplied by the plaintiff other than that of Rs.3,16,346/-. The contention of the plaintiff are denied in toto about alleged supply of the materials under invoice No. SEC/1004/22-23 and SEC/1196/22-23 being forged and fabricated.
It has also been denied that the plaintiff is entitled to recover any amount from the defendant as no amount is due against the defendant and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. A detailed replication to the Written Statement was also preferred by the plaintiff reiterating the contents of the plaint and vehemently denying the contents of the Written Statement. It has further been reiterated that after the supply of goods as per the three purchase orders placed by the defendant company, the official/director of the plaintiff company sent repeated e-mails/whatsapp messages to the defendant Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2024.10.01 17:25:17 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.1154/2023 M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Page no. 8 of 46 Counter Claim No.11/2024 M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. company but the defendant company never alleged in reply to any of the e-mails/whatsapp messages that the entire goods were not supplied by the plaintiff or any excess payment has been made by the defendant. The plaintiff has further contended that it is only after receipt of the legal notice dated 24.03.2023 the defendant for the first time has raised the allegations regarding the entire goods as per the purchase orders being not supplied and excess payment being made by the defendant. While denying that the plaintiff supplied the material only worth of Rs.3,16,346/- against total value of the entire 3 purchase orders, the plaintiff has also denied that Shri Ravi Kant Sharma, Sales Manager of OEM has approached the defendant company at its office situated at Ghaziabad. It has been reiterated that the defendant company placed purchase orders for purchase of various types of cables and wires at the office of the plaintiff at Chandni Chowk, Delhi from where the goods as per purchase orders were supplied to the defendant by the plaintiff company. It has been averred that the payment against the invoices raised by the plaintiff were also to be made by the defendant company at the said office of the plaintiff company.
4.1) While denying the contention of the defendant for placing only two purchase orders, the plaintiff has reiterating that defendant has placed three purchase orders against which entire supply was made. It has been contended by the plaintiff that no material is remained to be supplied to the defendant by the plaintiff as on date and the defendant has Digitally signed by MUKESH KUMAR MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA made a part payment of Rs.15 lakhs twice, also categorically denying that GUPTA Date:
2024.10.01 17:25:25 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.1154/2023 M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Page no. 9 of 46 Counter Claim No.11/2024 M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. the aforesaid payment was made against anticipated and accelerated supply at the behest of Shri Ravi Kant Sharma. It has been stated that the defendant has failed to pay the outstanding dues of Rs.71,90,185/-and the suit is liable to be decreed with interest and costs.
COUNTER CLAIM OF THE DEFENDANT (D) CLAIM OF THE COUNTER CLAIMANT:
5. In the counter claim, the counter-claimant/defendant has averred that :
5.1) Shri Sanjay Kumar, its director has been authorized to sign, verify and file the present counter claim vide Board Resolution dated 04.10.2023, the counter-claimant being a body incorporate under the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the business of selling and supply of the electrical goods .
5.2) While reiterating the contents of the Written Statement in the suit, it has been averred that in the month of October, 2022, one Mr. Ravi Kant Sharma had approached the counter claimant company and convinced the officials of the company to issue purchase order for supply of certain specific material of bonton make as his company is offering heavy discount on account of festive season. Believing the same, the counter claimant has placed two purchase order bearing No. LE/SECPL/2022-23/156 dated 13.10.2022 for a sum of Rs.43,52,900/- and LE/SECPL/2022-23/329 for a sum of Rs.44,95,600/- for supply of Digitally signed by MUKESH the goods with the condition that the payment of the goods shall be made MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.10.01 17:25:59 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.1154/2023 M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Page no. 10 of 46 Counter Claim No.11/2024 M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. within 60 days from the date of delivery & inspection of the materials at site.
5.3) It has further been averred that the purchase orders were collected by he aforesaid Ravi Kant Sharma and all the follow ups qua supply of goods were made with the aforesaid Ravi Kant, the Sales person of OEM. It has further been averred that the counter claimant company has received goods wroth of Rs.3,16,346/- under invoice dated 31.10.2022. However, after such supply the aforesaid Ravi Kant Sharma changed his version and started pressurizing the counter claimant to make advances for further supply of goods and after repeated demands and follow ups the counter claimant transferred a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-
on 15.01.2023 through RTGS and another Rs.15,00,000/- on 24.02.2023 in anticipation of complete supply of materials as per purchase orders but no supply was made except the supply made under invoice dated 31.10.2022.
5.4) It has further been averred that since no supply was made beyond material worth of Rs.3,16,346/- the counter claimant is entitled to recover the balance amount of Rs.26,83,654/- excessively paid, and illegally withheld by the plaintiff-respondent. The counter claimant is stated to have made various requests to Shri Ravi Kant Sharma for supply of entire material but he could not ensure the same despite repeated assurances that the same shall be supplied soon. It has further Digitally averred that it has come to the knowledge of the counter claimant that signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA Shri Ravi Kant Sharma and the respondent-plaintiff has conspired GUPTA Date:
2024.10.01 17:26:08 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.1154/2023 M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Page no. 11 of 46 Counter Claim No.11/2024 M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. together to earn illegally by raising fake bills or by supplying inferior quality or duplicate material to the parties and due to aforesaid action the OEM has also terminated Shri Ravi Kant Sharma from the company.
5.5) It has finally been averred that soon thereafter the counter claimant has received legal demand notice dated 24.03.2023 from the plaintiff-respondent which was duly replied by the counter claimant apprising the true and correct facts and it was for the first time, the counter claimant came to know about two invoices dated 17.10.2022 and 22.11.2022. The respondent plaintiff despite knowing the aforesaid fact has filed the suit for recovery of Rs.71,90,085/- without any cause of action. Hence the counter claim for refund of excess payment of Rs.
26,83.015/- from the plaintiff alongwith interest and costs of the counter claim.
REPLY OF RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:
6. The Respondent/plaintiff has preferred a detailed reply/Written Statement to the counter claim thereby calling it false, vexatious, devoid of any merits and liable to be dismissed at the threshold.
6.1) The plaintiff respondent has vehemently denied that the allegations of not making the complete supply of goods in terms of purchase order is a story concocted to create a sham defence and to avoid liability against supplied goods by the counter-claimant/defendant.
6.2) The respondent-plaintiff has further averred that the falsity Digitally MUKESH signed by MUKESH KUMAR of claim raised by the counter claimant can been seen from the fact that KUMAR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.10.01 17:26:20 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.1154/2023 M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Page no. 12 of 46 Counter Claim No.11/2024 M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. the respondent-plaintiff has already filed copies of three invoices as per the GST Act, against GST Number of plaintiff company as well as the counter claimant company, the e-way bills in respect of each supply and the transport challan which proves the delivery of goods to the counter- claimant in respect of each invoice. It has been averred that the plaintiff company has duly reflected these supplies in its GST Returns for the period October, 2022 and November, 2022 which shows that the goods were supplied and received in respect of each invoice amounting a total of Rs.1,01,90,185/-. It has been averred that counter claimant must have also reflected the purchase of goods against the three invoices in their GST Returns for the same period, otherwise, the GST Department should have issued a notice to the counter claimant company for mis-match in for GST returns. It has further averred that the counter claimant company has failed to file any document in support of its contention that the sum of Rs.30,00,000/- in two tranches of Rs.15,00,000/- each was paid as advance towards the goods for which purchase orders were placed on 13.10.2022 and 11.11.2022.
6.3) Finally, it has been averred that the e-mails and Whatapps messages between the parties has never mentioned regarding non supply of entire goods even once and it was only on receipt of the legal notice issued by the plaintiff that the counter claimant has came out for the first time with the story of incomplete supply. The respondent-plaintiff has Digitally prayed for dismissal of the counter claim with costs.
signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.10.01 17:26:28 +0530 (D) CRYSTALISING THE DISPUTE :-
CS (Comm.) No.1154/2023 M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Page no. 13 of 46 Counter Claim No.11/2024 M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd.
7. On the pleadings of the parties and documents placed on record and after perusing the affidavit of admission denial with the defendant admitting receipt of the invoices/bills, but denying details & amount thereof, the following issues were framed in the main suit for adjudication vide order dated 22.02.2024.
ISSUES.
(i) Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for want of cause of action as no goods have been supplied to the Defendant ?OPD
(ii) Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed as no amount is due and payable by the Defendant ?OPD.
(iii) Whether the suit has not been filed by a duly authorized person as the Board of Resolution relied by the Plaintiff is forged and fabricated ? OPD
(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant?OPP
(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest ? if so, at what rate and for which period ?OPP
(vi) Relief.
8. It is pertinent to mention here that Ld. Predecessor of this court has not framed the issues in counter claim simultaneously which were later vide order dated 22.04.2024 of this court :-
Digitally signed by ISSUES:
MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.10.01 (1) Whether the counter-claim is false and vexatious?
17:26:36 +0530 OPP(Plaintiff in main suit and respondent in counter-claim) CS (Comm.) No.1154/2023 M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Page no. 14 of 46 Counter Claim No.11/2024 M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd.
(2) Whether the defendant-counter claimant has not supplied the goods to the plaintiff ? OPD (C) (3) Whether the Counter -claimant is entitled to a recovery of Rs.26,83,654/- OPD (C) (4) Whether the Counter-claimant is entitled to any interest on such amount, if so, for what rate and for what period ? OPD (C) (5) Relief.
9. There was a typographical error in issue no. 2 in the counter claim which was rectified and recasted vide order dated 24.09.2024 :-
"Whether the plaintiff-respondent has not supplied the goodsto the Counter-Claimant/defendant?OPD (C)."
10. It is further pertinent to mention here that since both the matters are inter-connected, the evidence was ordered to be led in common with the suit being leading case. At the request of both the parties, the evidence was ordered to be led through a Local Commissioner and Shri Alok Aggarwal, Ld. Retired District Judge, Delhi was appointed to record the evidence of the parties. Ld. Local Commissioner has recorded the evidence of both the parties including the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witness on 17.05.2024, 22.05.2024 and that of the defendant's witness on 28.05.2024 and 31.05.2024.
(E) EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT.
11. Plaintiff (Respondent in the counter claim), in support of its case, got examined its Director/Authorized Representative Shri Shwetank Digitally signed by MUKESH Aggarwal, as PW1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit in the MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.10.01 17:26:43 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.1154/2023 M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Page no. 15 of 46 Counter Claim No.11/2024 M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd.
suit as Ex.PW1/A and in the counter-claim as Ex.PW1/C.
12. PW1 reiterated the contents of the plaint on oath and the contents of the reply to the counter-claim in his affidavits. He got exhibited the Certified copy of board resolution dated 04.10.2023 in his favour as Ex.PW1/1, Master data downloaded from website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs in respect of the defendant/counter claimant company as Ex.PW1/2, Copy of Purchase Orders issued by the defendant dated 11.11.2022 and 13.10.2022 as Ex.PW1/3 (colly), Copy of Invoices raised by the plaintiff dated 17.10.2022, 31.10.2022 and 22.11.2022 alongwith the e-way bills and the goods receipt (GR) as Ex.PW1/4 (colly) (OSR), Copies of communication/reminder sent by the plaintiff company to the defendant through E-mail as Ex.PW1/5 (colly), copies of Whatsapp messages written by the director of the plaintiff company to Shri Santosh of Lexla Energy (as mentioned), the defendant herein as Ex.PW1/6 (colly), Copy of Statement of Account in respect of the defendant company as Ex.PW1/7 (colly), copy of legal notice dated 24.03.2023 sent to the defendant as Ex.PW1/8, its Postal Receipt as Ex.PW1/9 (OSR), copy of the e-mail sending the notice to the defendant as Ex.PW1/10, copy of defendant's reply dated 21.04.2023 as Ex.PW1/11, Affidavit u/s 65-B of the Evidence Act in respect of the electronics records as Ex.PW1/B, Copies of print outs taken from the GST Portal reflecting the supply of goods, their values and the deposited tax as Ex.PW1/12 (colly) and Affidavit u/s 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, in respect of Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR the aforesaid as Ex.PW1/D. He has further deposed that the suit is GUPTA KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2024.10.01 17:26:52 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.1154/2023 M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Page no. 16 of 46 Counter Claim No.11/2024 M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. correct and the defendant is liable to pay the outstanding amount alongwith interest and costs and the counter-claim filed by the counter claimant be dismissed with exemplary costs.
13. During a detailed cross-examination, Ld. Counsel for defendant/counter-claimant Shri Rakesh Kumar Shukla has tried to puncture the testimony of PW1 on the point of Purchase Orders, Supply of goods covered by two invoices more particularly invoice No.1004 and 1196 dated 17.10.2022 and 22.11.2022 respectively and other aspects.
PW1 during cross-examination has denied the suggestion that Shri Santosh Singh, the purported representative of the defendant company with whom he had first dealing is neither a director nor an employee of the defendant company and also that the dealings with Shri Santosh Singh in respect of supply of the material have not been authorized by the defendant company. He has deposed that he has received the purchase order from the defendant company through e-mail in attachment form. He has denied the suggestion that he has procured the purchase order from the defendant only through Shri Ravi Kant Sharma, the sales manager of the Original Manufacturer (Bonton). He has deposed that in terms of the purchase orders Ex.PW1/3(colly), the material was supplied as and when the same was ready and payment was to be made within 60 days after receipt of the material. He has also denied the suggestion that at the time of receipt of purchase orders, the plaintiff company was not in a position to make the supplies through he has admitted that as per the Digitally signed by MUKESH terms of purchase orders, the supply was to be made immediately on MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.10.01 17:26:59 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.1154/2023 M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Page no. 17 of 46 Counter Claim No.11/2024 M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. receipt. He has admitted that e-way bill dated 15.10.2022 in respect of the invoice dated 17.10.2022 for an amount of Rs.45,69,031/- and the e- way bill dated 23.11.2022 in respect of invoice dated 22.11.2022 for an amount of Rs.53,04,808/- do not bear the respective invoice numbers through the E-way bill dated 31.10.2022 for invoice dated 31.10.2022 for Rs.3,16,346/- bears the same. He has denied the suggestion that the above mentioned E-way bill dated 15.10.2022 and 23.11.2022 do not have invoice numbers as goods under aforesaid invoice have not been actually supplied to the defendant. He has voluntarily deposed that the same is on account of the fact that the material was supplied directly by the OEM (Bonton) to the defendant company's on site on bill to ship to basis and the same are carried on till the delivery is completed. He has deposed to have generated the invoice dated 17.10.2022 and 22.11.2022 before delivery of the material. He has further deposed that the material under aforesaid invoices were supplied through transport and delivery proof was handed over to the company (OEM) and not to the plaintiff whereafter the OEM send the delivery proof to the plaintiff company for raising invoice. He has admitted that the delivery proof under invoices bear the stamps and signature of the receiving party which are visible but not legible. He has denied the suggestion that the stamps and signatures on the said delivery proof do not belong to the defendant company or any of its employee. He has admitted that the e-mail dated 13.10.2022 (part of Ex.PW1/5 colly) attaching the purchase orders mentions "as per Bonton representative Mer. Narender Bajaj and Mr. Ravi Kant Sharma"
Digitally signed by MUKESH who were the employees of Bonton (OEM) and not of plaintiff. He has MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.10.01 17:27:08 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.1154/2023 M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Page no. 18 of 46 Counter Claim No.11/2024 M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. admitted that aforesaid two persons were involved in the negotiation for the rates also and he has procured the purchase orders. While admitting the receipt of payments of Rs.15,00,000/- on 04.01.2022 and also of Rs.15,00,000/- on 24.02.2023, he has explained that no other payment were receipt and amount of Rs.100/- shown in Ex.PW1/7 was a test transaction.
14. The witness has admitted that the Chartered Accountant files the GST returns (of the plaintiff company) on the basis of records provided, after due rechecking the entries on the GST portal and further deposed that upto the filing of GST returns, there was no confirmation from the defendant company in respect of the delivery of the materials.
15. When confronted as to whether the defendant has taken input credit of GST only against the invoice dated 31.10.2022 and not in respect of the other two invoices, he has shown lack of knowledge and explained that if input credit is not taken by the defendant there would be a mismatch in the GST portal. He has denied the suggestion that Shri Ravi Kant Sharma had managed bogus billings against the purchase orders involved in this suit to show achievement of his target and also shown ignorance regarding his termination from OEM.
16. While admitting that the material against the two invoices dated Digitally 17.10.2022 & 22.11.2022 was not supplied through any depot or signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA warehouse belonging to plaintiff company, he has explained that the GUPTA Date:
2024.10.01 17:27:16 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.1154/2023 M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Page no. 19 of 46 Counter Claim No.11/2024 M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. material was directly supplied from the warehouse of the OEM on bill to ship to basis. He has also admitted that at the time of shipping of the material neither he nor any of his employees was present at the warehouse of the OEM.
17. The invoices issued by Bonton Cables dated 15.10.2022 and 22.11.2022 on the basis of which, the plaintiff has issued the invoices dated 17.10.2022 and 22.11.2022 were got exhibited as Ex.PW1/DA, Ex.PW1/DB respectively. He has admitted that the conversation between him and Santosh Singh about the transaction under the invoices subject mater of this suit is at Mark 'X' in Ex.PW1/6 (colly). He has deposed that he did not receive the GR/Transport Challan against the material supplied to the defendant and that he did not make efforts to ascertain the identity of the persons whose acknowledgement was appended in the photocopies of GRs. Finally, he has deposed that he did not send any rejoinder/counter reply to the reply legal notice as sent by the defendant or that there has been dispute in respect of the supplies/business transaction made through Shri Ravi Kant Sharma, the Sales representative of OEM.
18. No other witness was examined by the plaintiff-respondent.
(F) DEFENDANT'S/COUNTER-CLAIMANT'S EVIDENCE :-
19. The defendant in its defence/counter claim examined one Shri Digitally MUKESH signed by MUKESH KUMAR Sanjay Kumar its duly authorized representative as DW1 who has filed KUMAR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.10.01 17:27:42 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.1154/2023 M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Page no. 20 of 46 Counter Claim No.11/2024 M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/1 and Ex. DW1/2. He reiterated the contents of the Written Statement and the counter claim on oath and exhibited the copy of Board of Resolution dated 04.10.2023 in his favour as Ex.DW1/A, copy of reply to the legal notice as Ex.DW1/D. The witness is also exhibited the master data of its company drawn from the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs as Ex. DW1/B and its statement of account in respect of the plaintiff/respondent as Ex. DW1/C. He has also deposed in his evidence that suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed as the defendant has not liability towards the plaintiff rather defendant is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.26,83,654/- from the plaintiff on account of excessive payment made in anticipation of the complete supply of the materials in terms of purchase orders. He has deposed that the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs and the counter claim is liable to be decreed.
20. The witness was subjected to a detailed cross-examination by Ld. Counsel Sh. Goel for the plaintiff, during which DW1 has admitted to have issued two purchase orders to the plaintiff company i.e. one dated 13.10.2022 for Rs.51,36,422/- and the second dated 11.11.2022 for Rs.53,04,808/- and both these purchase orders were sent through the defendant's e-mail ID i.e. [email protected]. He has also admitted his signatures at point A and B on both the purchase orders Ex.PW1/3(colly). He has also admitted that the purchase order did not mention whether the delivery was to be made by the plaintiff company or Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR directly by the OEM i.e. Bonton Company, however, it is mentioned that KUMAR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.10.01 17:27:52 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.1154/2023 M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Page no. 21 of 46 Counter Claim No.11/2024 M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. the delivery had to be made immediately or within a period of 7 to 10 days. He has further admitted that there was no complaint in writing made by the defendant company to the plaintiff company for non-supply of goods as per the purchase order dated 13.10.2022 till 31.10.2022 but volunteered to making telephonic conversation with Sh. Ravi Kant Sharma. The witness has admitted that there were no complaints received in writing by the defendant company from the actual customer of the material at Lucknow. The witness has further admitted that no complaint was made in writing to the plaintiff company for receipt of goods worth Rs.3,16,346/- only against the purchase order worth of Rs. 51,36,422/-. Similar was his answer with respect to the purchase order dated 11.11.2022. On a specific question as to why the second purchase order dated 11.11.2022 worth Rs. 53,04,808/- was issued to the plaintiff despite deficit supply in respect of first purchase order, the witness has stated that the defendant required more material and Mr. Ravi Sharma was insisting that the supply thereof shall be further delayed if purchase order for more order is not placed.
21. He has further admitted that the GST number on all the three invoices Ex.PW1/4(colly), and on Ex.PW1/DA & Ex.PW1/DB belongs to the defendant company. The witness has stated that generally the delivery is acknowledged by him by his signatures on transport challan and in his absence, his peon signs it. When confronted with the GR receipt/delivery challan Ex. DW1/PA, the witness has stated that the Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA same does not have any signatures but when confronted with the other GUPTA Date:
2024.10.01 17:28:03 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.1154/2023 M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Page no. 22 of 46 Counter Claim No.11/2024 M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. challan Ex. DW1/PB and Ex. DW1/PC, the witness has stated that the same neither belongs to him nor to his peon.
22. The witness has further admitted the payment of Rs.15,00,000/-
was made to the plaintiff on 04.01.2023 and subsequently further payment of Rs.15,00,000/- was made on 24.02.2023. When confronted with the factum of second payment of Rs.15,00,000/- being made despite non receipt of goods covered by first purchase order the witness has answered that the second payment of Rs.15,00,000/- was made as Shri Ravi Kant Sharma kept insisting on advance payment without which no further supply of goods shall be made, however, the witness has admitted that there is no written communication in this regard with Mr. Ravi Kant Sharma who has informed orally. The witness was also confronted with the witness with regard to non-taking of legal action for recovery of Rs.26,83,654/- against the plaintiff on account of making of excess payment and waited till filing of present recovery suit to which the witness has answered that Shri Ravi Kant Sharma has assured him for supply of entire goods.
23. The witness has denied the suggestion with regard to the non- making of written complaint because entire goods as per the purchase order dated 11.11.2022 were received by the defendant company on 22.11.2022, under the transport challans Mark DW1/PB and Digitally Ex.DW1/PC. He has further denied that no written communication was signed by made because the payment of Rs.15,00,000/- was a part payment towards MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.10.01 17:28:11 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.1154/2023 M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Page no. 23 of 46 Counter Claim No.11/2024 M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. supply of the entire goods as per the two purchase order dated 13.10.2022 and 11.11.2022. The witness has also denied that the defendant company has made web page on India Mart Portal in which the contact persons name is Mr. Santosh Singh and the suggestion that the defendant did not make any excess payment also denying a connected story by the defendant company after receipt of the legal notice dated 24.03.2023. He has denied the suggestion that the counter-claim has been filed by the defendant company to raise a sham defence in the suit by the plaintiff. To a specific question regarding the deficiency of supply is not mentioned in the e-mails to the plaintiff company between 24.01.2023 and 17.03.2023, the witness has denied the knowledge of the receipt of the e-mails but admitted that the e-mails mentioned in Ex.
PW1/5 (colly) belongs to the defendant. When asked about the whatsapp chat Ex. PW1/6 being made by the plaintiff company through Mr. Shwetank Aggarwal with Sh. Santosh, the witness had denied any relation with such Santosh being an employee/representative of the defendant but admitted that the message sent by the aforesaid Sh. Santosh might have been sent by Sh. Ravi Kant Sharma, Sales Representative of the OEM. The witness has finally asked regarding the lack of legal action being taken on which the witness has first stated that assurance was given by Sh. Ravi Kant Sharma and then said that the aforesaid Sh. Ravi Kant Sharma has also threatened to stop the supply of further goods until more payments are being made as per value of the purchase order.
Digitally
signed by
MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2024.10.01
17:28:20
+0530
CS (Comm.) No.1154/2023 M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Page no. 24 of 46
Counter Claim No.11/2024 M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd.
24. No other witness was examined by the defendant.
(G) ANALYSIS & DETERMINATION:-
25. I have heard the vehemently arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsels for the parties, perused the entire record including the pleadings, the oral as well as documentary evidence and have given a thoughtful consideration to the same. For the sake of convenience, the status of the parties is mentioned as plaintiff and defendant to include respondent and counter-claimant in counter claim. My issue-wise determination is as under:-
ISSUE NO. (iii) in the main suit:
Whether the suit has not been filed by a duly authorized person as the Board of Resolution relied by the Plaintiff is forged and fabricated ?OPD
26. The onus of proving this issue has held upon the defendant who has taken preliminary objection in the written statement that the suit of the plaintiff has not been filed by a duly authorized person and the alleged Board Resolution dated 20.03.2023 is a forged and fabricated document, a contention which has been vehemently refuted by the plaintiff in its replication. However, coming to the evidence it may be seen that the defendant has failed to lead any evidence in support of this issue so much so that even the defendant has failed to mention his deposition in this regard in his affidavit Ex. DW1/A. Contrary to the aforesaid, PW1 in his deposition has duly proved the certified copy of the Digitally signed by MUKESH Board Resolution dated 20.03.2023 Ex. PW1/1 on record and has also MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.10.01 17:28:27 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.1154/2023 M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Page no. 25 of 46 Counter Claim No.11/2024 M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. explained during his cross-examination that the same bears the signatures of his father who is another Director of the Company. Order XXIX Rule 1 of CPC prescribes that a suit can be filed by or against a corporation by any Director, Secretary or any Principal officer of the corporation who is able to depose the facts of the case and competent to sign and verify on behalf of the plaintiff company. Reliance placed on AIR 1997 SC3 titled United Bank of India Vs. Naresh Kumar. There is no dispute that Sh.
Shwetank Aggarwal who has signed the suit and also appeared as a witness before the court is a Director of the plaintiff company and has been duly authorized vide board resolution dated 20.03.2023 Ex.PW1/1. In view thereof while the defendant has failed to discharge the onus conferred on its shoulders, the plaintiff has been able to show it otherwise on the yardstick of preponderance of probabilities. This issue is accordingly decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUES No. (i) & (ii) in the main suit and ISSUES NO. 1 & 2 (recasted) in the counter claim:
(i) Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for want of cause of action as no goods have been supplied to the Defendant ?OPD
(ii) Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed as no amount is due and payable by the Defendant ?OPD.
(1) Whether the counter-claim is false and vexatious? OPP (Plaintiff in main suit and respondent in counter-claim) (2) Whether the plaintiff-respondent has not supplied the goods to the Counter-Claimant/defendant?OPD (C).
Digitally signed by MUKESH
27. The onus of proving issues (i), (ii) in the main suit and issue no. 2 MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.10.01 in the counter claim is on the defendant/counter claimant while that of 17:28:35 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.1154/2023 M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Page no. 26 of 46 Counter Claim No.11/2024 M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. issue no. 1 in the counter claim is on the plaintiff/respondent. These issues are taken together as they are inextricably interconnected and evidence led by parties is also common. These issues also goes to the centre of entire controversy between the parties in as much as the case of the plaintiff is based on alleged supply of goods material worth Rs. 1,01,90,185/- to the defendant pursuant to purchase orders Ex. PW1/2 placed by the defendant on the plaintiff against which a payment of Rs. 30,00,000/- in two tranches of Rs. 15,00,000/- has been made leaving behind an outstanding of Rs. 71,90,185/- which is the suit amount. On the other hand, the case of the defendant/counter claimant is that only a supply of goods worth Rs. 3,16,346/- has been made against an advance payment of Rs. 30,00,000/- leaving behind an outstanding excess payment of Rs. 26,83,654/- which the defendant has claimed as a counter-claim amount. The crux of the controversy is whether the goods covered by the invoices relied upon by the plaintiff were ever supplied to the defendant or was there a deficit supply by the plaintiff leaving behind an outstanding amount of counter claim as prayed for by the defendant.
28. Now there are admitted facts and disputed facts in the instant case. The purchase orders Ex. PW1/3 dated 13.10.2022 and 11.11.2022 placed upon the plaintiff company by the defendant for a sum of Rs. 51,36,422/- and Rs. 53,04,808/- for supply of Bonton Brand Coils is admitted. The payment of Rs. 30,00,000/- in two tranches of Rs. 15,00,000/- each being Digitally made by the defendant to the plaintiff through cheques/RTGS payment signed by from the Indusind Bank of the defendant to the HDFC Bank of the MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.10.01 17:28:43 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.1154/2023 M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Page no. 27 of 46 Counter Claim No.11/2024 M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. plaintiff on 04.01.2023 and 24.02.2023 Ex. DW1/C and Ex. PW1/7 is also admitted. The defendant has also admitted part supply of goods worth Rs.3,16,346/- against purchase order No.LE/SECPL/2022-23/156 dated 13.10.2022 Ex.PW1/3 vide invoice No.SEC/1056/2022-23 dated 31.10.2022 Ex.PW1/4.
29. What is disputed between the parties is the claim of the plaintiff that the actual supply of goods worth Rs.1,01,90,185/- against which a payment of Rs.30,00,000/- in two tranches of Rs.15,00,000/- is made by the defendant leaving an outstanding balance of Rs.71,90,185/- on one hand AND the claim of the defendant-counter claimant that the actual supply of goods worth of Rs.3,16,346/- was made by the plaintiff against an advance payment of Rs.30,00,000/- by the defendant thereby leaving an outstanding amount of Rs.26,83,654/- for which the defendant- counter claimant has filed the counter claim. Thus the dispute between the parties and point of determination is whether the plaintiff has made the total supply of goods worth Rs.1,01,90,185/- or has made a supply of goods worth Rs.3,16,346/- only.
30. Now the onus of proving deficient supply of goods is on the defendant, who has not filed any document except its Statement of Account Ex.DW1/C to show that a credit of Rs.3,16,346/- on 13.10.2022 by GST purchase in credit and two entries of Rs.15,00,000/- each on 04.01.2023 and 24.02.2023 through its banker Indusind bank as debit Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA entries. Ex.DW1/C in itself does not clarify as to whether the payment of GUPTA Date:
2024.10.01 17:28:51 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.1154/2023 M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Page no. 28 of 46 Counter Claim No.11/2024 M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. Rs.30,00,000/- was an on account payment against actual delivery as claimed by plaintiff or were advance payment against anticipated delivery of goods as claimed by defendant/counter-claimant, in contradistinction to the corresponding enteries in plaintiff's Statement of Account Ex.PW1/7 (colly) which shows the same to be part payment against bill No.1004 Ex.PW1/4. For the same the court has to carefully analyze the oral evidence led by the parties. The defendant/counter- claimant on its part has not examined any independent witness to show that the delivery of goods was not made and has only examined its Authorised Representative DW1 Sanjay Kumar, who in his oral testimony has simply mentioned that the purchase order for material worth Rs.1,04,41,230/- was made to the plaintiff against which plaintiff could make supply of material worth Rs.3,16,346/- vide invoice No. SEC/1056/22-23 dated 31.10.2022 under e-way bill No.721294918805 only whereas the defendant has made payment of Rs.30,00,000/- in anticipation of complete supply of materials as per purchase order and therefore, the claim of Rs.71,90,065/- is illegal & unjust while relying upon the aforesaid a testimony. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff Shri Amit Goel has over emphasized on the e-way bills dated 15.10.2022 (part of Ex.PW1/4) and 22.11.2022 ( also part of Ex.PW1/4) not bearing invoice numbers in contradistinction to e-way bill dated 31.10.2022 bearing invoice numbers by heavily relying upon the cross-examination of PW1 and also tried to rely upon the provisions of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) Act, 2017, to buttress that in case goods are sent Digitally signed by MUKESH KUMAR MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA directly from manufacturer to a recipient, title of the goods shall be GUPTA Date:
2024.10.01 17:28:59 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.1154/2023 M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Page no. 29 of 46 Counter Claim No.11/2024 M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. deemed on that of that person on whose directions such supply is made which according to Ld. Counsel for defendant shall be plaintiff.
31. While Ld. Counsel for defendant has tried to give a wonderful tour of provisions of GST guide and the invoices number on the e-way bills, Ld. counsel for plaintiff has simply explained by submitting that large manufacturing companies do not sell/supply the goods directly to the customers but sell it through their distributors or channel partners in which case through the marketing representative of the manufacturer negotiates the supply deal, order is placed by the actual consumer to the distributor and the manufacturing company bills the distributor who in turn bills the actual consumer. In this process to save time and freight cost the manufacturer raises the invoices to distributor (in this case the plaintiff) mentioning Billed to Supplier/distributor and send the goods to customer by mentioning Shipped to Customer and the e-way bills at the time of dispatch of goods to the actual customers is generated by manufactures thereby mentioning the invoice numbers raised to the distributors. This is done to avoid any confusion or technical difficulty in movement of goods/material from manufactures (on behalf of distributor) to the actual consumer directly.
32. If the present case is carefully seen the evidence more particularly documentary evidence is very clear. The defendant Lexla Energy raised Digitally 2 purchase orders Ex.PW1/3 on the plaintiff Suparbhat Electric for signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA supply of material of a particular brand (bonton) worth Rs.53,04,808/-
GUPTA Date:
2024.10.01 17:29:06 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.1154/2023 M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Page no. 30 of 46 Counter Claim No.11/2024 M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. and Rs.51,36,422/- thereby totaling to Rs.1,04,41,230/- against which the plaintiff made supply of material worth Rs.1,01,90,185/- in three parts/supply to the defendant on 15.10.2022, 29.10.22 and 23.11.2022 and raised invoices dated 17.10.2022 (for goods delivered on 16.10.2022) 31.10.2022 (for goods delivered on 31.10.2022) and 22.11.2022 ( for goods delivered on 23.11.2022) against which payment of Rs.30,00,000/- have been made leaving a balance of Rs.71,90,185/-. A tabulated form of the purchase order, invoices, e-way bills and GR Receipt showing delivery will make it crystal clear.
S. Invoice E-way bill Invoice Transport Date of No raised by the generated by rais-ed by challan delivery of Manu- the Manu- the Plaintiff details goods to facurer (i.e. facturer (i.e. to the the BONTON) to BONTON) Defendant Defendant the Plaintiff
1. Invoice No. E-way Bill No. Invoice No. G.R. No. 16.10.2022 B/22-23/2209 791292154374 SEC/1004/2 6047 dated dated dated 2-23 dated 15.10.2022 15.10.2022 15.10.2024 17.10.2022 Mark Ex.PW1/DA Ex-PW1/4 Ex-PW1/4 DW-1/PB Rs.43,85.589/ (Colly) (Colly) This E-way bill Pursuant to number is also supply made mentioned in e- under way Bill invoice purchase of Original order dated (OEM). Also 13.10.2022 mentions Ex-PW1/3 Billed-to-ship to (Colly) Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.10.01
2. Invoice No. E-way Bill No. Invoice No. G.R. No. 31.10.2022 17:29:13 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.1154/2023 M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Page no. 31 of 46 Counter Claim No.11/2024 M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd.
B/22-23/2316 791294717993 SEC/1056/2 20057 dated dated 2-23 dated dated 29.10.2022 29.10.2024 31.10.2022 29.10.2022 Ex-PW1/4 Mark (Colly) DW-1/PA Pursuant to supply made under purchase order dated 13.10.2022 Ex-PW1/3 (Colly)
3. Invoice No. E-way Bill No. Invoice No. G.R. No. 23.11.2022 B/22-23/2777 76130065617 SEC/1196/2 1232 dated dated dated 23.11.2024 2-23 dated 23.11.2022 22.11.2022 Ex-PW1/4 22.11.2022 Mark Ex.PW1/DB (Colly) Ex. PW1/4 DW-1/PC Rs.50,90,303/ (Colly) Pursuant to supply made under purchase order dated 11.11.2022 Ex-PW1/3 (Colly)
33. Now the contention raised by defendant is that goods covered by invoice dated 17.10.2022 for a sum of Rs.45,69,803/- and invoice dated 22.11.2022 for a sum of Rs.53,64,808/- (part of Ex.PW1/4) were not MUKESH Digitally signed by MUKESH supplied. However, when the documents are carefully perused invoice KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.10.01 17:29:21 dated 17.10.2022 Ex.PW1/4 clearly mentions not only the purchase order +0530 CS (Comm.) No.1154/2023 M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Page no. 32 of 46 Counter Claim No.11/2024 M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. number, place of delivery and the number of e-way bill clearly. The e- way bill (Ex.PW1/4) clearly shows that it was generated at the manufacturers (bonton cables India Ltd.) with place of delivery to Ghaziabad, UP which is place of delivery which is clearly connected to the GR receipt No. 6047 ( also part of Ex.PW1/4) showing the address of defendant. The e-way bill mentions the GST Number of manufactures (Bonton) and that of the recipient (plaintiff) with specific mention of the Transaction Type being Billed to Shipped to . This document is clearly connected to the Tax invoice by the manufacture Bonton Cables bearing No. B/22-23/2209 dated 15.10.2022 Ex.PW1/DA which also clearly shows the Billed to as Suprabhat Electric Company Private Ltd. (plaintiff) and Shipped to as Lexla Energy India (defendant) on his full address at Kausambi, Ghaziabad.
34. Similar is the case of invoice dated 22.11.2022 against PO order dated 11.11.2022 being connected to e-way Bill No.76130006517 and invoice of the manufacturer (OEM) Bonton bearing No. B-22-23/2277 dated 22.11.2022 reflecting the same billed to and shipped to aspect.
35. Now having cleared the confusion regarding invoice numbers and GST numbers, the court now adverts to the actual supply of material to the defendant. It may be seen that the Good Receipts of the transporter against both supplies mentions the signatures and the stamp of the Digitally signed by MUKESH recipient of the goods, which were refuted by the defendant in his MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.10.01 evidence. It may be seen that both these GRs are clearly connected to the 17:29:28 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.1154/2023 M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Page no. 33 of 46 Counter Claim No.11/2024 M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. invoices Ex.PW1/4 and the e-way bills as already discussed in details. These supplies were made through the transporter receipts (GRs) bearing the vehicle numbers and date of supply being 16.10.2022 and 23.11.2022 and even one of the GR mentions the phone number 9891454506 of defendant's representative Santoshi Ji" (which is also refuted by the defendant). But the evidence and circumstances, the e-mail communications Ex.PW1/5 and WhatsApp communication between representative of plaintiff and defendant Ex.PW1/6 also shows that the contention raised by defendant is incorrect as can be made out from the oral evidence of parties more particularly cross-examination of DW1.
36. Moving further, as per purchase order (Ex.PW1/3) supply of material was immediate and as per DW1, the delivery was required to be made in 7-10 days. Now purchase order was made on 13.10.2022 but the defendant did not make any complaint either by any letter, e-mail or by WhatsApp that the supply is not made by the plaintiff. During cross-
examination, DW1 has admitted that the defendant has not made any complaint to the plaintiff or have received any complaint from its customers at Lucknow, which is highly unbelievable keeping in view the urgency of goods, the period of its supply and the amount involved. The simple answer of the defendant that oral complaint were made to Shri Ravi Kant Sharma telephonically is unbelievable to any reasonable prudent mind. Secondly, the defendant has contended to have received Digitally goods worth Rs.3,16,346/- against purchase order dated 13.10.2022 of signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA Rs.51,36,422/- and instead of complaining for short supply of about 94% GUPTA Date:
2024.10.01 17:29:34 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.1154/2023 M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Page no. 34 of 46 Counter Claim No.11/2024 M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. of the material, writing any communication for the same, decides to place second purchase order on 11.11.2022 for another Rs.53,04,808/- which is quite unbelievable and when specifically asked during cross- examination, DW1 says that the defendant had requirement of more material and they believed on the saying of Mr. Ravi Kant Sharma, that further material will be supplied only if purchase order of more material is made, which is completely contrary to business norms and understanding of a reasonable prudent mind. The witness also admits during cross-examination that even at the time of making second purchase order no complaint in writing for non-supply of goods were made.
37. Now adverting to the date of payment of Rs.15,00,000/- each, first payment was admittedly made on 04.01.2023 i.e. after almost after 40 days of second purchase order and after 65 days of alleged deficient supply of goods worth Rs.3,16,346/- only when purchase orders of Rs.1,04,41,230/- is already made and the supply of material is allegedly 6% of the first purchase order, without any whisper or complaint. Interestingly, the second payment of Rs.15,00,000/- was made on 24.02.2023, almost 50 days after first payment but according to defendant there was absolutely no supply of goods between 04.01.2023 and 24.02.2023, it is axiomatically unexplainable and unbelievable that somebody will make a second payment that too of Rs.15,00,000/- when Digitally signed by there is already an extra payment of Rs.11,83,654/- ( add Rs.15,00,000/-
MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA - Rs.3,16,346/-) without any murmur. The answer of the defendant GUPTA Date:
2024.10.01 17:29:41 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.1154/2023 M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Page no. 35 of 46 Counter Claim No.11/2024 M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. during cross-examination is that Shri Ravi Kant Sharma was insisting for further payment if further supply of goods/material is required, but there is no written communication.
38. This alongwith another fact makes the defence of defendant and case of counter-claimant doubtful, when Whatsapp chat Ex.PW1/6 is clearly examined. This chat is between Shri Shwetank Aggarwal, Director of plaintiff and one Shri Santosh Ji, of the Lexla Energy (Defendant herein) though the existence of this Santosh is also disputed by the defendant. The period of chat is between 19.02.2023 and 11.03.2023. Now between this period there was a deficient supply of goods/material worth Rs.1,00,00,000/- approximately according to defendant's contention, but there is only demand & insistence for payment by plaintiff and not even a whisper of alleged pending/deficient supply by Santosh Ji, the purported representative of the defendant company. The plaintiff offers for taking the material back if the same is unused to which the defendant responds already used instead of saying that the material has not been supplied so payment should not be asked.
The representative also writes that the client site requires more material ( 3 times your billing) to which plaintiff responds that if funds are released further material can be supplied. Certainly this further material is not deficient supply material but connected to the extra requirement of the defendant at client's site. Now the defendant contends that Santosh Ji has nothing to do with defendant company and there is no official named Digitally signed by MUKESH Santosh Ji in the defendant company, but the same Santosh Ji sends the MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.10.01 17:29:48 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.1154/2023 M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Page no. 36 of 46 Counter Claim No.11/2024 M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. message of Rs.15,00,000/- transfer to plaintiff through its Indusind bank account of defendant company which was admitted by the DW1 during cross-examination, though again with an explanation that message was sent to Shri Ravi Kant Sharma and of course the message is not a forwarded message. Further on the Indian mart Web page of the defendant company on website, not only the GST number and address is of the defendant is mentioned but the contact person mentioned is Santosh Singh which is quite a coincidence. When confronted during cross-examination, DW1 simply deny the suggestion regarding him being employee of defendant.
39. Finally, one of the interesting circumstances which make the defendant's plea of deficient/non-supply of material by plaintiff is the unexplained silence and inaction of the defendant to make any written communication, complaint or even legal action against the plaintiff. As per defendant, there were purchase orders worth Rs.1,04,41,230/- and there was a supply of Rs.3,16,346/- only and there was an advance/anticipated payment of Rs.30,00,000/- to the plaintiff company by 24.02.2023, but the defendant continued to sit silent not approaching any court/authority or even the plaintiff asking for either damages or at least recovery of excess payment of Rs.26,83,654/- till the time the defendant receives legal notice dated 24.03.2023 Ex.PW1/8 from the plaintiff demanding Rs.71,90,185/-. It is now for the first time that too Digitally after almost 1 month the defendant decides to disclose and first time take signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA a written stand in its reply dated 21.04.2023 to the legal notice GUPTA Date:
2024.10.01 17:29:55 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.1154/2023 M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Page no. 37 of 46 Counter Claim No.11/2024 M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. Ex.PW1/11 that the supply of material was not made by the plaintiff in respect of invoices number 1004 and 1196 dated 17.10.2022 and 22.11.2022 asking the plaintiff to withdraw legal notice dated 24.03.2023 and also advising him to send material worth Rs.1,01,24,844/- or make refund of Rs.26,83,654/-. The defendant still decides to sit idle instead of approaching the court of law/any other forum uptil 15.09.2023 i.e. about 5 months till he receives the summons of plaintiff suit for recovery. When asked specifically during cross-examination DW1 again takes stand of assurance being given (without disclosing by whom) that goods will be sent against the said (means remaining Rs.26,83,654/-) payment and in the same breath says that Mr. Ravi Kant Verma also threatened that further goods will not be made unless more payment is made, as if the defendant was waiting for more than 9 months for the supply of deficient material, which is highly unbelievable.
40. Lastly, adverting to the stand of the defendant that the payment of Rs.30,00,000/- was made by the defendant in part satisfaction of invoice of Rs.3,16,346/- and remaining Rs.26,83,654/- in anticipation of further supply, the plaintiff ( as a respondent in the counter-claimant) has taken a stand that the sale against three invoices raised on the defendant during October, 2022 and November, 2022 has been shown by plaintiff in its GST Returns and since these invoices also shows the GST number of defendant, the defendant must have also reflected purchase of goods Digitally signed by against these 3 invoices in their GST returns otherwise GST department MUKESH would issue a notice to defendant company for mismatch in GST returns.
MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.10.01 17:30:02 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.1154/2023 M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Page no. 38 of 46 Counter Claim No.11/2024 M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. This GST return of plaintiff has got exhibited on record as Ex.PW1/12 but interestingly neither the defendant has filed copy of his GST in response thereto nor even refuted or responded to this contention by filing any rejoinder to the reply of plaintiff to the counter claim.
41. Even during cross-examination of PW1, Ld. Counsel for defendant has put up a question (without any pleadings) that the defendant company has taken input credit of GST against invoice dated 31.10.2022 and not taken input credit of GST in respect of invoices dated 17.10.2022 and 22.11.2022 without filing its GST Return or showing the same to the witness to which the witness has denied knowledge and has again reiterated that if input credit is not taken (by defendant), the same would show a mismatch in GST portal as per GST Rules. The defendant has even not attempted thereafter to clarify whether any such mismatch has been shown on the GST portal. The witness has further maintained that upto the filing of GST return there was no confirmation from the defendant company in respect of delivery of materials. Now if the defendant has not taken the GST input in respect of supplies received by it, it was required to prove the same on record by filing appropriate document and proving the same in accordance with law or at least file his Income Tax Return to show that the payment of Rs.30,00,000/- was actually given by the defendant towards anticipated supply (which means advance given to the plaintiff).
Nothing has been filed or proved on record by the defendant/counter- Digitally signed by MUKESH claimant. The defendant has accordingly, withheld an evidence which it MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.10.01 17:30:10 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.1154/2023 M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Page no. 39 of 46 Counter Claim No.11/2024 M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. was required to bring on record for proving its case, which leads to only one inference that the contention raised by defendant in respect of deficient/non-supply is just a ploy or a counter blast to the claim of the plaintiff to avoid liability.
42. In view of the aforesaid discussion and findings of the court, the defendant/counter-claimant has failed to prove the aspect of non-supply of material or deficient supply of material by the plaintiff/respondent even on the yardstick of preponderance of probabilities. While on the other hand, the plaintiff has been able to successfully proved on record that the claim regarding the non-supply/deficient supply of materials to the defendant/counter claimant is only a defence or a counter blast leading to the filing of a counter claim being vexatious.
43. Accordingly Issues No. (i) & (ii) in the main suit and issue No.2 in the counter claim are decided against the defendant/counter-claimant and in favour of plaintiff and issues No. 1 in the counter- claim is decided in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and against the counter-
claiment/defendant.
ISSUE No. (iv) in the main suit AND ISSUE NO.3 in the counter claim.
(iv). "Whether the plaintiff is entitled tor recover the suit amount from the Defendant ?OPP"
(3.) "Whether the Counter-claimant is entitled to a recovery of Rs.26,83,654/- OPD(C)"
Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.10.01 17:30:19 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.1154/2023 M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Page no. 40 of 46 Counter Claim No.11/2024 M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd.
44. The onus of proving the issue No. (iv) in the main suit was held upon the plaintiff and issue No.3 in the counter-claim was held upon the counter-claimant/defendant regarding their respective entitlements of their suit and counter-claim amounts.
45. Keeping in view the findings of the court on the afore discussed issues, the plaintiff has successfully proved that it has supplied the entire material against the purchase orders No. LE/SECPL/2022-23/156 dated 13.10.2022 and LE/SECPL/2022-23/329 dated 11.11.2022, Ex.PW1/3 (colly) and raised tax invoices No. SEC/1004/22-23 dated 17.10.2022, SEC/1056/22-23 dated 31.10.2022 and SEC/1196/22-23 dated 22.11.2022 for a sum of Rs. 45,69,031/-, Rs.3,16,346/- and Rs.53,04,808/- respectively Ex. PW1/4 (colly) totaling Rs. 1,01,90,185/-
coupled with the e-way bills as well as the GR number bearing Nos. 79129215437 dated 15.10.2024, (GR No. 6047), 791294717993 dated 29.10.2024 (GR No. 20057) and 76130065617 dated 23.11.2024 (GR No.1232) respectively, (also part of Ex.PW1/4 colly) to the defendant/counter-claimant against which a payment of Rs. 30,00,000/- in two tranches of Rs.15,00,000/- each have been received and the remaining amount amount of Rs.71,90,085/- (suit amount ) vide Ex.PW1/7 has not been paid by the defendant-counter claimant. The defendant/counter-claimant has failed to prove its plea that it has received the material worth Rs.3,16,346/- against invoice No. SEC/1056/22-23 dated 31.10.2022 only against the material worth Rs.,1,04,41,230/- for Digitally signed by MUKESH which he paid in advance of Rs. 30,00,000/- in two tranches and MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.10.01 17:30:26 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.1154/2023 M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Page no. 41 of 46 Counter Claim No.11/2024 M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. accordingly, he shall not be entitled to the counter-claim amount for recovery of Rs.26,83,654/- .
46. The plaintiff has also duly proved its legal notice dated 24.03.2023 Ex.PW1/8 sent through postal receipt Ex.PW1/9 and e-mail Ex.PW1/10 to the defendant which was even responded to by the defendant through its reply Ex.PW1/11. Admittedly, the payment of the outstanding has not been made by the defendant to the plaintiff and the pre-institution mediation, non-starter report dated 27.07.2023 has also been filed on record. The defendant has failed to put any substantial dent in the testimony of PWs. The testimonies of PW1 and DW2 and the documents discussed above one by one in seritum and the fact that the defendant/ counter-claimant has failed to prove any documentary or oral evidence to controvert the aforesaid so as to the question of the very liability. Thus taken on the yardstick of preponderance of probability and on the basis of documentary and oral evidence, the plaintiff has been able to prove his entitlement for balance due in respect of supplies made and utilized by defendant. On the other hand, the defendant has utterly failed to prove its claim of excessive payment of Rs.26,83,654/- to the plaintiff-respondent on account of deficient supply of materials by the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff shall be entitled to recovery of Rs.71,90,085/- against the defendant-counter claimant and the defendant/counter-claimant shall lnot be entitled any amount as claimed in the counter claim.
Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.10.01 17:30:34
47. Issue No. (iv) in the main suit is decided in favour of plaintiff and +0530 CS (Comm.) No.1154/2023 M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Page no. 42 of 46 Counter Claim No.11/2024 M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd.
against the defendant and issue no.3 in the counter-claim is decided against the defendant and in favour of Respondent/plaintiff.
ISSUE NO.5 in the main suit and ISSUE NO.4 in the counter-
claim. :
"Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest, if so, at what rate and for which period ? OPP"
"Whether the Counter-claimant is entitled to any interest on such amount, if so, for what rare and for what period? OPD (C)".
48. The onus of proving these issues was also held upon the plaintiff/respondent as well as on the counter-claimant/defendant who have claimed an interest @ 18% per annum on their outstanding amount pendentlite and future. However, the counter-claimant/defendant has failed to prove its entitlement of counter claim, therefore no question for award of interest on the counter claim arises. In so far as the entitlement of interest in respect of plaintiff claim is concerned, though there is a stipulation of 18% per annum on the invoices Ex.PW1/4 (colly). However, Hon'ble Supreme court in a number of judgments reported as Pt. Munshi Ram @ Associates (P) Lt. Vs. DDA, 2010 SCC Online Delhi 2444, Rajendra Construction Co. Vs. Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority and others, 2005 (6) SCC 678, McDermott International Inc. Vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and others, 2006 (11) SCC 181, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Indag Rubber Ltd., (2006) 7 SCC 700, Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. Vs. G. Harischandra, 2007 (2) SCC 720 & State of Rajasthan Vs. Ferro Concrete Construction Pvt.
Digitally Ltd. (2009) 3 Arb. LR 140 (SC) has repeatedly mandated that courts signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA must reduce the high rates of interest on account of the consistent fall in GUPTA Date:
2024.10.01 17:30:41 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.1154/2023 M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Page no. 43 of 46 Counter Claim No.11/2024 M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. the rates of interest in changed economic scenario. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the nature of transactions of the case and the aforesaid settled law, court is of the considered opinion that interest of justice would be met, if an interest @ 9% per annum is granted to the plaintiff on the outstanding amount pendentlite and future from the date of filing of the suit till the date of its realisation. These issues are accoardingly, decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant/counter claimant.
(H) CONCLUSION:-
ISSUE No.6: Relief in the main suit as well as in the counter claim
49. In view of the aforesaid discussions and findings of the court on the aforesaid issues, the court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff/respondent has been able to successfully prove its entitlement to the recovery against the defendant/counter claimant and the defendant/counter claim has failed to prove the same. The suit of the plaintiff is accordingly decreed against the defendant for a sum of Rs.71,90,085/- and the counter claim of Rs. 26,83,654/- is dismissed with costs. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to a simple interest @ 9% per annum on such amount pendente-lite and future from the date of institution of the suit till its realization.
50. In the specific facts and circumstances of the case, while the Digitally signed by plaintiff shall be entitled to the costs of the suit throughout, the defendant MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.10.01 17:30:49 +0530 CS (Comm.) No.1154/2023 M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Page no. 44 of 46 Counter Claim No.11/2024 M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. shall bear the costs of its counter-claim alongwith the requisite costs of litigation to be paid to the plaintiff/respondent.
51. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
52. File be consigned to record room after due completion.
MUKESH Digitally
by MUKESH
signed
KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA
Date: 2024.10.01
GUPTA 17:30:57 +0530
(MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA)
DATED 30.09.2024 DJ (Commercial Court)-07
CENTRAL/DELHI
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
CS (Comm.) No.1154/2023 M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Page no. 45 of 46
Counter Claim No.11/2024 M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd.
CERTIFICATE Certified that the judgment contains 45 pages and each page has been digitally signed by me. The judgment was pronounced on 30.09.2024 in open court and is being checked and uploaded on 01.10.2024. MUKESH Digitally by MUKESH signed KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA Date: 2024.10.01 GUPTA 17:31:05 +0530 (MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA) DJ (COMMERCIAL COURT)-07 CENTRAL/DELHI(PK) CS (Comm.) No.1154/2023 M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Page no. 46 of 46 Counter Claim No.11/2024 M/s Lexla Energy India P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Suprabhat Electric Co. P. Ltd.