Delhi District Court
M/S Transtek Infoways Pvt. Ltd vs Gulsan Arora on 12 January, 2024
IN THE COURT OF Ms. NEELAM SINGH
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMM-02),
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
CS (COMM) 552/2021
M/s Transtek Infoways Pvt. Ltd.
Having its registered office at:
3rd Floor, Khasra No. 385,
Opp.- Corporation Bank,
Ghitorni, New Delhi-110030
Through its authorised representatives
Mr. Vikas Chandra Pathak ..... Plaintiff
Vs.
Gulsan Arora
Proprietor of
M/s Computer Software & Services
406, Saraswati House,
Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019
Also at:
Proprietor of
M/s Computer Software & Services
2, Satyam Plaza, Near Civil Hospital
Gurugram-122001 .....Defendant
Date of Institution: 27.11.2021
Arguments concluded on : 10.01.2024
Date of Judgment: 12.01.2024
Judgment
1.By this judgment, I shall decide the present suit filed by M/s Transtek Infoways Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred as plaintiff) seeking relief of recovery of Rs. 4,49,366/- (Rupees Four Lakhs CS (COMM) 552/21 M/s Transtek Infoways Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gulsan Arora Page 1 of 13 Forty Nine Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty Six only) on Gulsan Arora (Defendant).
The crux of facts stated in brief is noted below:
Case of the plaintiff
2.1 In brief, the case of the plaintiff is that M/s Transtek Infoways Pvt. Ltd., an IT equipment supplier, seeks to recover outstanding dues from its customer, Gulsan Arora, proprietor of M/s Computer Software & Services. It is submitted that Defendant places orders for various IT equipment, including HP laptops, backpacks, and Dell backpacks in September-October, 2019. Plaintiff raised invoices totaling Rs. 5,31,000, Rs. 54,870, and Rs. 2,79,960 for the supplied items. Defendant makes a partial payment of Rs. 4,14,500/- but remains liable for Rs. 4,49,366/-. Despite persistent demands and reminders from the Plaintiff, the Defendant fails to clear the outstanding dues.
2.2 After exhausting all amicable avenues, the Plaintiff issues a legal demand notice dated 10.09.2020, seeking the outstanding amount with interest. Defendant neither pays the dues nor responds to the legal notice. The Plaintiff attempts pre-institution mediation through the District Legal Service Authority, but the Defendant doesn't participate, rendering the process unsuccessful.
CS (COMM) 552/21 M/s Transtek Infoways Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gulsan Arora Page 2 of 13Case of the defendant 3 Written Statement has been filed on behalf of the defendant wherein the Defendant acknowledges the Plaintiff's existence and past commercial relationship. The defendant also acknowledges specific clauses of the Plaintiff's suit concerning their own records and general transaction history are admitted. The Defendant confirms the validity of two invoices but alleges the delivered goods were substandard and outdated. A verbal agreement to adjust the price for these items to Rs. 4,14,500/- and subsequent full payment in December 2019 are asserted, constituting a complete settlement with no further liability. The third invoice is categorically denied, claiming it does not pertain to the Defendant and may be an attempt by the Plaintiff to fabricate evidence. The Defendant denies receiving any demand for payment prior to the lawsuit, questioning the Plaintiff's adherence to proper procedures.
Issues
4. After completion of pleadings, issues came to be framed on 15.02.2023 as under:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of sum of Rs. 4,49,366/- in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any interest on the decreetal amount pendente CS (COMM) 552/21 M/s Transtek Infoways Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gulsan Arora Page 3 of 13 lite and future interest, if yes, then at what rate? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the cost of the suit alongwith litigation cost? OPP
4. Relief.
Plaintiff's Evidence 5.1 The matter then was kept for evidence. PW-1 Vikash Chandra Pathak has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A. He also relied upon following documents:
1. Copy of authorization is Ex. PW1/1 (OSR).
2. Original invoices dated 18.09.2019, 14.10.2019 and 19.10.2019 are Ex. PW1/2 (Colly.)
3. Statement of account is Ex. PW1/3.
4. Affidavit under section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex. PW1/4.
5. Copy of demand notice dated 10.09.2020 is Ex. PW1/5.
6. Postal Receipts are Ex. PW1/6 (Colly).
5.2 PW-1 has been cross-examined at length by Ld. Counsel for defendant. During his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for defendant, PW-1 has deposed that he is the authorized signatory of the plaintiff company since 2017 and is well aware about the facts of the present case. He has further deposed that he is the business CS (COMM) 552/21 M/s Transtek Infoways Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gulsan Arora Page 4 of 13 head of the company. He has deposed that defendant had taken the delivery of the goods in Gurgaon as per invoice and bill Ex.PW1/2 (Colly). A suggestion has been given to him that the goods were not delivered at Gurgaon which he has denied. He has further deposed that the goods were delivered at Saraswati House, Nehru Place, New Delhi. He has volunteered that defendant has acknowledged all the bill of the goods delivered to him at Saraswati House, New Delhi. He has further volunteered that all the goods had been delivered to the defendant and defendant had sold all these goods to different customers as per record. He has further volunteered that if the goods would not have been taken by the defendant, how he would have sold these goods to different customers. He has further deposed that there is no settlement between plaintiff and defendant for any bill/transaction. He has denied the suggestion that the matter has been settled between plaintiff and defendant for an amount of Rs. 4,14,500/- for all the bills till 18.12.2019. Thereafter, plaintiff's evidence was closed vide separate statement of PW-1.
Defendant's Evidence 6.1 Matter was fixed for defendant's evidence. Defendant has examined Sh. Gulshan Arora as DW-1. DW-1 has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW1/A. 6.2 During cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff, DW- 1 has deposed that the business relation between plaintiff company and the defendant company were since 2018-19. No CS (COMM) 552/21 M/s Transtek Infoways Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gulsan Arora Page 5 of 13 settlement has ever taken place between him and the plaintiff company. He has not filed any document with regard to his affidavit at the time of filing of WS. Thereafter, defendant's evidence was closed vide separate statement of DW-1.
Final Arguments
7. The matter was listed for final arguments. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff as well as Ld. Counsel for defendant made their respective submissions.
Arguments on Behalf of the Plaintiff:
8.1 It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that the Defendant acknowledges two invoices totaling Rs. 5,85,870/-, establishing a contractual obligation for payment. This forms the undisputed foundation for the Plaintiff's claim. It is further submitted that despite the partial payment of Rs. 4,14,500/-, further amount of Rs. 4,49,366/- remains outstanding, constituting a clear breach of contract and giving rise to a valid cause of action for debt recovery against the defendant.
8.2 It is further submitted that the Defendant's alleged verbal agreement for a reduced price lacks written documentation, raising concerns about enforceability. It is further submitted that inconsistencies between the alleged full payment date and the outstanding balance cast doubt on the Defendant's claims and strengthen the Plaintiff's case. It is further submitted that invoices, CS (COMM) 552/21 M/s Transtek Infoways Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gulsan Arora Page 6 of 13 delivery records, and potentially witness testimony can demonstrate delivery of the disputed goods to the Defendant's address.
8.3 Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has invited the attention of this Court on cross-examination of plaintiff witness and cross- examination of defendant witness by submitting that DW-1 in his cross-examination has mentioned that the relationship between plaintiff company and defendant started in the year 2018-19. the witness has also submitted that no settlement has ever taken place between the plaintiff and the defendant. It is submitted that no document has been placed on record by the defendant in order to show his defence. On the other hand, plaintiff has placed on record the invoices and bill Ex. PW1/2 in order to prove the delivery of goods to the defendant. It is further submitted that PW- 1 has submitted in his cross-examination that there was no settlement between the plaintiff and defendant for any bill/ transaction.
Counter-Arguments on Behalf of the Defendant:
9 Ld. Counsel for defendant argued that though plaintiff had supplied the goods on the basis of invoice no. TIPL/1920/G-02199 for an amont of Rs. 5,31,000/- and invoice TIPL/1920/G-02520 for Rs. 54,870/- thus for a total amount of Rs. 5,85,870/- but the goods supplied were found outdated and substandard and this was communicated to the plaintiff and accordingly the matter was CS (COMM) 552/21 M/s Transtek Infoways Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gulsan Arora Page 7 of 13 settled for an amount Rs. 4,14,500/- which was paid to the plaintiff on 18.12.2019. It is further submitted that plaintiff did not supply the goods against the invoice no. TIPL/1920/G-02610 for an amount of Rs. 2,77,996/-. It is further the case of the defendant that defendant has never had any office/ branch at Nehru Place, New Delhi and defendant has its sole office at Gurugram.
10. Both the parties have addressed their arguments.
Admittedly, defendant has not placed on record any document in his defence. I now propose to deal with the issues in the background of the record. The court will meticulously analyze the presented evidence and consider the arguments of both parties before issuing a final verdict that is based on the principles of law and the specific facts of the case.
Issue-wise findings Issue no. 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of sum of Rs. 4,49,366/- in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant? OPP
11. The Plaintiff established a robust foundation for their claim by introducing undisputed contractual elements by placing on record original invoices dated 18.09.2019, 14.10.2019 and 19.10.2019 (Ex. PW1/2 (Colly.)), statement of account (Ex. PW1/3) alongwith an affidavit u/s 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act (Ex. PW1/4). Copy of demand notice dated 10.09.2020 alongwith postal receipts are Ex. PW1/5 and Ex. PW1/6 (Colly.) CS (COMM) 552/21 M/s Transtek Infoways Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gulsan Arora Page 8 of 13 respectively. Invoice no. TIPL/1920/G-02199 dated 18.09.2019 is for an amount of Rs. 5,31,000/- and invoice no. TIPL/1920/G- 02520 dated 14.10.2019 is for an amount of Rs. 54,870/-. Against both these invoices, defendant has claimed that he has made a payment of Rs. 4,14,500/- towards settlement as he has received the goods which were outdated and substandard but defendant has not placed on record any evidence in any manner to support this fact. The invoices Ex. PW1/2 (Colly.) served as irrefutable documents outlining the specific IT equipment delivered, their corresponding values, and the outstanding balance. These invoices, accepted by the Defendant, confirm an initial and valid agreement for payment.
12. Production of original invoices (Ex. PW1/2 (Colly.)) establishes a concrete basis for the contractual obligation and the outstanding debt. It provides tangible evidence of the transaction and the agreed-upon amount. The initial claim of the defendant I.e a verbal settlement in the written statement, followed by its denial in the cross-examination under oath, undermines the Defendant's credibility and casts doubt on their defense. The Defendant bears the burden of proving their claim of a settlement, which becomes significantly harder in the absence of documented evidence.
13. Breach of Contract: The Defendant's partial payment, acknowledged to be Rs. 4,14,500/-, cannot erase the undeniable breach of contract represented by the remaining Rs. 4,49,366/-. This substantial deviation from the agreed-upon payment terms CS (COMM) 552/21 M/s Transtek Infoways Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gulsan Arora Page 9 of 13 constitutes a clear violation of the contractual obligation, giving rise to the Plaintiff's legitimate claim for debt recovery.
14. The Defendant attempted to counter the Plaintiff's claim through two primary arguments: faulty goods and a purported verbal settlement. However, closer examination reveals significant weaknesses in both contentions. The Defendant's allegations of substandard goods lack the crucial support of concrete evidence. Absence of documented proof, such as quality inspection reports or official complaints, weakens their claim considerably. Mere assertions without documented substantiation do not hold legal weight against the Plaintiff's established contractual terms.
15. Verbal Settlement: The Defendant's assertion of a verbal settlement for a reduced price raises suspicions due to inconsistencies in their own statements. Varying accounts regarding the settlement amount and date cast doubt on the validity and enforceability of this alleged agreement. Furthermore, the significant deviation from the original invoice amounts without documented support raises potential concerns about adherence to legal requirements, such as the Statute of Frauds or specific business regulations regarding substantial financial agreements.
16. Burden of Proof and Unfulfilled Obligations: In this case, the burden of proof falls upon the Defendant to effectively challenge the Plaintiff's well-established contractual claim and prove their defense beyond reasonable doubt. However, the CS (COMM) 552/21 M/s Transtek Infoways Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gulsan Arora Page 10 of 13 Defendant fails to provide convincing evidence to substantiate their allegations or sufficiently counter the Plaintiff's documented contractual obligation.
17. Contractual Obligation Beyond Goods: While the Defendant focuses on the quality of the goods, the Court emphasizes that the Plaintiff's claim goes beyond simply selling equipment. It revolves around the Defendant's obligation to fulfill the financial terms of the agreed-upon contract. Even if quality concerns existed, they would require proper documentation and negotiation for adjustments, not nullify the entire contractual obligation.
18. After careful analysis of the evidence and legal arguments presented, the Court finds the Plaintiff's case to be well-founded and adequately supported by documented proof. Conversely, the Defendant's lack of concrete evidence and inconsistencies in their defense significantly weaken their position. Therefore, the Court decrees in favor of the Plaintiff for the outstanding amount of Rs. 4,49,366/- with future interest at the prevailing rate from the date of judgment.
Issue No. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any interest on the decreetal amount pendente lite and future interest, if yes, then at what rate? OPP Issue No. 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the cost of the suit alongwith litigation cost?
CS (COMM) 552/21 M/s Transtek Infoways Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gulsan Arora Page 11 of 1319. As regards the rate of interest claimed by the Plaintiff at the rate of 24 per cent is concerned, I am of the considered opinion that as per the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra AIR 2001, Supreme Court 3095, the grant of pendente-lite and future interest is a subject matter of the discretion of the Court and not to be governed by the agreement between the parties. Accordingly in exercise of the discretionary power of this Court, I have granted pendente-lite and future interest at the rate of 6% p.a. to the Plaintiff because Section 34 of CPC, 1908 as well as the provisions of the Interest Act, 1978, contemplate grant of interest at the rate of 6% per annum and because in the past decade, the nationalized banks have also granted interest at the rate of 5-6% per annum, on terms deposits.
20. Legal Costs: The defendant shall bear the legal costs incurred by the plaintiff in pursuing this lawsuit. This Court finds such costs justified in light of the defendant's unsuccessful attempt to avoid their contractual obligations and the resulting burden placed upon the plaintiff.
Relief
21. WHEREFORE,: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that:
CS (COMM) 552/21 M/s Transtek Infoways Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gulsan Arora Page 12 of 13(a) The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the total sum of Rs.
4,49,366/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Forty Nine Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty Six only), together with interest accrued at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of suit until the date of actual realization.
(b) The Defendant shall bear all legal costs incurred by the Plaintiff in this lawsuit.
22. The Suit of the Plaintiff is decreed accordingly. Decree sheet be drawn and file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced & dictated in the open Court on this 12th day of January, 2024 (NEELAM SINGH) District Judge (Commercial Court-02) South-East, Saket Courts, ND CS (COMM) 552/21 M/s Transtek Infoways Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gulsan Arora Page 13 of 13