Madras High Court
M/S.Intek Security Systems Pvt.Ltd vs M/S.Metronic Integrated System Pvt. ... on 9 June, 2023
Author: C.Saravanan
Bench: C.Saravanan
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.37 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved On 27.02.2023
Pronounced On 09.06.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
C.S.No.37 of 2021
(Comm. Div.)
M/s.Intek Security Systems Pvt.Ltd.,
Represented by its Managing Director
B.Ravishankar. ... Plaintiff
Vs.
1.M/s.Metronic Integrated System Pvt. Ltd.,
Represented by its Managing Director,
Manickavasagam Sambantham.
2.M/s.Metronic Engineering Pvt.Ltd.,
Represented by its Managing Director,
Manickavasagam Sambantham
3.Manickavasagam Sambantham ... Defendants
Prayer:- Civil Suit filed under Section 2(1)(c)(i)(xviii) of the Commercial
Court Act, 2015 as amended in 2018 r/w Order IV Rule 1 of Original
Side Rules and Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C. praying to pass a Judgment
and Decree against the defendants as follows:-
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1 of 47
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.37 of 2021
(a) Directing defendants to pay a sum of
Rs.1,65,75,100/- together with further interest at
the rate of 24% per annum on the Principal Amount
of R.1,01,52,167/- payable from the date of plaint
till the date of realization;
(b) To pay the cost of the suit
For Plaintiff : Mr.S.Sathish Rajan
For Defendants : Mr.K.Balaji
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this Money Suit to recover a sum of Rs.1,65,75,100/- from the defendants together with further interest at 24% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.1,01,52,167/- from the date of the plaint till the date of realization.
2. This Court by an order dated 15.06.2022, has framed the following issues to be considered in this suit:-
(i) Whether the contract for supply of goods was only between the plaintiff and the first defendant or between the plaintiff and all the defendants?
(ii)Whether a sum of Rs.80,46,067/- was paid to M/s.Honey Well International India Pvt. Ltd. on the instructions of the plaintiff?
(iii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.2 of 47 C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.37 of 2021 sum of Rs.1,01,52,167/- from the defendants?
(iv)Whether there was an agreement in respect of interest and, if not, whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest at the rate of 24% per annum or at any other rate?
(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any other relief?
3. The plaintiff and the defendants are engaged in sale of System Integrators of Safety and Security Systems. It is specific case of the plaintiff that the first and second defendants are the sisters companies represented by the third defendant, the Managing Director who had approached the plaintiff and had placed purchase orders for supply of Fire Safety and Security Systems.
4. As per the purchase orders placed for the first defendant through the third defendant, supplies were effected to the first defendant during the period between March 2018 to April 2018 for a sum of Rs.1,79,77,063/-. Details of the purchase orders, Invoices and Amounts are given below:-
Table No.1 _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.3 of 47 C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.37 of 2021 Sl. Date Purchase Invoice No. Pending Amount Ex.No. No Order No. 1 02.03.2018 2080 GST/17-18/338 Rs 14,64,739/- P4 2 05.03.2018 2081 GST/17-18/397 Rs 40,43,884/- P5 3 06.03.2018 2081 GST/17-18/400 Rs.5,52,240/- P6 4 13.03.2018 2084 GST/17-18/426 Rs.1,06,69,176/- P7 5 26.04.2018 2081 GST/18-19/47 Rs.12,47,024/- P8 Total outstanding Rs.1,79,77,063/-
5. The above Exs.P4 to P8 pertain to Exs.P1 to P3 Purchase Order dated 02.03.2018, 03.03.2018 & 05.03.2018.
6. Similarly, the Purchase Orders were placed for the second defendant by the third defendant and supplies were effected to the second defendant between March, 2017 and April, 2018 for a sum of Rs.4,45,14,193/-. It is submitted that the second defendant has paid the entire amount of Rs.4,45,14,193/- and a sum of Rs.78,24,897/- was paid by the second defendant in excess over and above the amount of Rs.4,45,14,193/-.
7. Therefore, the third defendant requested the plaintiff to _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.4 of 47 C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.37 of 2021 adjust the excess amount of Rs.78,24,897/- paid by the second defendant against the outstanding of Rs.1,79,77,063/- to be paid by the first defendant. According to the plaintiff that after adjusting the above sum of Rs.78,24,897/-, the first defendant was still liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,01,52,167/- [1,79,77,063 - 78,24,897] to the plaintiff.
8. It is submitted that in discharge of the first defendant’s liability, the third defendant had also issued three Cheques in the name of the second defendant for a total amount of Rs.1,22,11,861/- with a request to the plaintiff that may be presented for collection during the month of February, 2019. Therefore, the plaintiff presented the three Cheques on 25.03.2019 and 13.03.2019 which were returned by the Bankers with endorsements ‘Funds Insufficient’ and ‘Payment stopped by the Drawer’.
9. It is submitted that the first defendant represented by the third defendant agreed to pay a sum of Rs.80,46,067/- out of Rs.1,01,52,167/- [1,79,77,063 - 78,24,897] to one of the plaintiffs’ supplier, i.e. M/s.Honey Well International India Pvt. Ltd. vide Ex.P15 _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.5 of 47 C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.37 of 2021 Letter dated 11.02.2019. The said payment was also made to M/s.Honey Well International India Pvt. Ltd. However, vide Ex.P20 Letter dated 15.02.2019 addressed to M/s.Honeywell International India Pvt. Ltd., the second defendant attempted to withdraw the said amount. To establish the same, the plaintiff has made a reference to Ex.P14 Letter dated 08.02.2019, Ex.P15 Letter dated 11.02.2019, Letter dated 25.04.2019 and Ex.P17 Legal Notice dated 23.04.2019 and Ex.P18 Legal Notice dated 19.07.2019.
10. It is submitted that the plaintiff informed the fate of the above Cheques to the defendants who requested the plaintiff to not to re- present the cheque and to not to take any criminal action for the dishonor of the cheques and assured and promised the plaintiff to pay the amount and that they will settle the entire dues at the earliest. Vide Ex.P15 Letter dated 11.02.2019, the defendants admitted their liability and agreed to settle the amount.
_____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.6 of 47 C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.37 of 2021
11.However, since the defendants did not pay the amount as assured and promised, the plaintiff sent several reminders via phone, personal visits and emails. It is submitted that however there was no response from the defendants and thus they have failed to repay the amount to the plaintiff. Hence, the present Civil Suit has been filed by the plaintiff.
12. On the side of the plaintiff, Mr.B.Ravishankar, the Managing Director of the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1. The following documents were marked as Exhibits on the side of the plaintiff:-
Sl. Exs. Date Description of Documents
No
1 Ex.P1 02.03.2018 Purchase Order No.2080 issued by the first
defendant
2 Ex.P2 03.03.2018 Purchase Order No.2081 issued by the first
defendant
3 Ex.P3 05.03.2018 Purchase Order No.2084 issued by the first
defendant
4 Ex.P4 02.03.2018 Invoice No.GST/17-18/338 for Rs.14,64,739/-
5 Ex.P5 05.03.2018 Invoice No.GST/17-18/397 for Rs.40,43,884/-
6 Ex.P6 06.03.2018 Invoice No.GST/17-18/400 for Rs.5,52,240/-
7 Ex.P7 13.03.2018 Invoice No.GST/17-18/426 for Rs.1,06,69,176/-
8 Ex.P8 26.04.2018 Invoice No.GST/17-18/47 for Rs.12,47,024/-
9 Ex.P9 30.11.2018 Original Cheque bearing No.002692 issued by
the defendant
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.7 of 47
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.37 of 2021
10 Ex.P10 30.12.2018 Original Cheque bearing No.002693 issued by
the defendant
11 Ex.P11 28.02.2019 Original Cheque bearing No.000114 issued by
the defendant
12 Ex.P12 11.03.2019 Return Memo
13 Ex.P13 25.03.2019 Return Memo
14 Ex.P14 08.02.2019 Letter from the defendant to the plaintiff’s
supplier
15 Ex.P15 11.02.2019 Letter from the defendant to the plaintiff
admitting their liability
16 Ex.P16 24.05.2019 Letter by the defendant to the plaintiff’s supplier
company revoking the remittance
17 Ex.P17 23.04.2019 Office copy of the Legal Notice sent by the
plaintiff
18 Ex.P18 19.07.2019 Office copy of the Legal Notice sent by the
plaintiff
19 Ex.P19 - Statement of Accounts
20 Ex.P20 15.02.2019 Photocopy of the Letter from the first defendant
to M/s.Honey Well International Pvt. Ltd.
21 Ex.P21 22.04.2019 Purchase Order No.Kone-P/PO/19-20/0067, placed by M/s.Ocean Life Spaces India Pvt. Ltd. 22 Ex.P22 24.05.2019 Tax Invoice issued by the plaintiff to M/s.Ocean Life Spaces India Pvt. Ltd.
23 Ex.P23 30.05.2019 Tax Invoice issued by the plaintiff to M/s.Ocean Life Spaces India Pvt. Ltd.
24 Ex.P24 - Ledger Account of M/s.Ocean Life Spaces India Pvt. Ltd. maintained by the plaintiff 25 Ex.P25 26.09.2019 Original Board Resolution _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.8 of 47 C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.37 of 2021
13. The defendants have filed their Written Statement. In the Written Statement, it is submitted that the first and second defendants are two separate legal entities and they have different service lines and fulfilling their respective customer demands. Therefore, it is unnecessary and unwarranted for the plaintiff to connect and relate them with the word of ‘sister companies’
14. It is submitted that under Section 2(87) of the Companies Act, 2013, a subsidiary company is not specified. The relationship with one another can be established by mere presentation of similar Directors on the respective Boards.
15. It is submitted that the both the first and second defendants have different set of other Directors on the respective Boards. It is submitted that both the first and second defendants are different legal entities and that the first defendant is not controlled by the second defendant either on the composition of Board of Directors or on the voting powers. It is further submitted that the third defendant has not _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.9 of 47 C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.37 of 2021 signed any personal guarantee for any alleged debts of the first and second defendants and therefore, this Money Suit is not maintainable as far as the third defendant is concerned.
16. It is further submitted that the tax invoices for a total amount of Rs.1,79,77,063/- were raised by the plaintiff only on the first defendant. Therefore, there is no need for the plaintiff to drag either the second defendant or the third defendant.
17. It is submitted that the defendants have paid an amount of Rs.80,46,067/- on behalf of the plaintiff to M/s.Honeywell International India Pvt. Ltd. which was communicated vide Ex.P15 Letter dated 11.02.2019. Subsequently, the plaintiff did not honour their commitment to supply the materials to M/s.Ocean Lifespaces Pvt. Limited, the customer of the defendants.
18. Hence, the defendants requested M/s.Honeywell _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.10 of 47 C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.37 of 2021 International India Pvt. Ltd. to revert the amount to the defendants. It is submitted that since the plaintiff did not give letter of acceptance/consent, the amount could not be reverted and hence, as on date, the amount of Rs.80,46,067/- is with the plaintiff.
19. It is submitted that to comply and complete the business contract from M/s.Ocean Lifespaces Pvt. Limited, the second defendant has to procure other materials from M/s.Honeywell International India Pvt. Ltd., for which, the second defendant made an advance payment of Rs.80,46,067/- on 31.01.2019 to M/s.Honeywell International India Pvt. Ltd.
20. It is submitted that it was agreed only the second defendant and the plaintiff to adjust the payment made to M/s.Honeywell International India Pvt. Ltd., to whom, the plaintiff owed payments to the tune of Rs.80,46,067/- and to supply the materials by the plaintiff to the second defendant in the place of M/s.Honeywell International India Pvt. Ltd. for the amount of Rs.80,46,067/-. However, the plaintiff did not supply goods for amount of Rs.80,46,067/- adjusted by the plaintiff _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.11 of 47 C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.37 of 2021 towards its outstanding to M/s.Honeywell International India Pvt. Ltd. and that there were neither communication nor any confirmation on the materials to be supplied. It is submitted that the second defendant has agreed to pay the remaining due of Rs.20,59,693/- alone through separate payment mode which was agreed by the plaintiff. The fact is that the plaintiff has admitted about this in their Ex.P17 Legal Notice dated 23.04.2019
21. However, contrary to that, the plaintiff in their Ex.P18 Legal Notice dated 19.07.2019 alleged that the said amount of Rs.80,46,067/- was adjusted to the account of M/s.Ocean Lifespaces Pvt. Limited for the supply effected. It is therefore submitted that the contention of the plaintiff that the first defendant still owed an amount of Rs.1,01,52,167/- to the plaintiff cannot be countenanced.
22. In the Written Statement, the defendants have denied the allegations of the plaintiff that the third defendant issued three Cheques which were returned, the defendant had requested not to present the Cheques again and not to take any criminal action for the dishonour of _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.12 of 47 C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.37 of 2021 Cheques or agreed to settle the entire dues and they have not paid the amount as assured and promised.
23. It is further submitted that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim interest at 24% per annum on the outstanding amount of Rs.1,01,52,167/- from the date of supply of the goods. It is submitted that the second defendant has made business communication with M/s.Honeywell International India Pvt. Ltd. to adjust the advance payment of Rs.80,46,067/- made by them and to give credit to the plaintiff which was accepted and executed by them on 01.02.2019. This was communicated to the plaintiff vide Ex.P15 Letter dated 11.02.2019 and was confirmed in ledger balance adjustment by M/s.Honeywell International India Pvt. Ltd., in such an eventuality the plaintiff has received payment through ledger balance adjustment of Rs.80,46,067/- from the defendants.
24. It is submitted that due to non-fulfilment of business agreement by the plaintiff as the plaintiff has not supplied required materials on behalf of the second defendant as per their Purchase Order, _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.13 of 47 C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.37 of 2021 the second and third defendants had suffered severe mental pressure and agony as the concerned business contractor M/s.Ocean Lifespace Pvt. Limited had cancelled business orders and asked them to leave the contract abruptly. It is submitted that the second defendant had invested more than 2 Crores in the project with M/s.Ocean Lifespace Pvt. Limited towards operating expenses.
25. It is submitted that the plaintiff had insisted to give post- dated Cheques to them from the Bank Account of the second defendant with an ulterior and malicious intention which the defendants unaware at that point of time, but, the second defendant had given the Cheque dated 20.03.2019 to the value of Rs.20,59,693/- to the plaintiff even though they have no outstanding payment due to them. It is submitted that the above can be evidentially proven through the Financial Statement provided by the plaintiff as on 24.09.2018 which is part and parcel of the suit document.
26. It is submitted that similarly, the second defendant had also _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.14 of 47 C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.37 of 2021 issued another Cheque amounting to Rs.50 Lakhs to the plaintiff on 22.03.2019 in addition to the first Cheque for an amount of Rs.20,59,693/- on compulsions of the plaintiff and as they want to be doubly make sure of their payment should not be defaulted by the first defendant. All these were done only under the business compulsions by the plaintiff and at that point of time, the defendants had no other choice other than succumbing to the plans of the plaintiff and they were not aware of the devious intentions of the plaintiff that they are going to make them separately for the post-dated Cheques issued.
27. It is submitted that the first defendant owe only a sum of Rs.20,59,693/- to the plaintiff. They suffered loss due to the business slow down and also due to the ensuing global pandemic Covid-19 situation. It is submitted that the defendants faced severe blow on their part as they had to close down their operation due to the lockdown imposed by the Government.
28. It is submitted that the second defendant had issued the _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.15 of 47 C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.37 of 2021 Cheque without any such delay to the plaintiff just in order to secure them mentally and also to complete the business transaction at that point of time. However, the plaintiff had presented the cheque for payment on 12.03.2019 and 23.03.2019, whereas, the second defendant had no outstanding to the plaintiff as on that date. It is submitted that the plaintiff with the ulterior and malicious intention dragged the second respondent into the irrelevant and unconnected business transaction.
29. As far as the Ex.P15 Letter of acceptance of liability dated 11.02.2021 is concerned, the defendants stated that Ex.P15 Letter dated 11.02.2021 was given by the first defendant only at the insistence by the plaintiff that they were willing to receive such letter of acceptance only from the second defendant. It is submitted that the second defendant had done this only in view to safeguard their business interest by executing the orders of their customer M/s.Ocean Lifespace Pvt. Limited as they had good business trust with them.
30. It is further submitted that it is false to state that vide _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.16 of 47 C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.37 of 2021 Ex.P16 dated 24.05.2019, the second defendant revoked the above remittance made to M/s.Honeywell International India Pvt. Ltd. It is further submitted that none of the defendants had given any such communication to M/s.Honeywell International India Pvt. Ltd.
31. It is submitted that the balance confirmation of Rs.20,59,693/- was clearly admitted by the plaintiff in Ex.P17 Legal Notice dated 23.04.2019 sent to the second defendant. It is further submitted that on the mentioned date of 24.05.2019, the second defendant sent a Letter only to the plaintiff, marking copy to their customer M/s.Ocean Lifespace Pvt. Limited, wherein, there is no work of utterance about ‘revoking’ mentioned.
32. It is submitted that it is very strange the demand of the plaintiff has raised from Rs.20,59,693/- in their first Legal Notice dated 23.04.2019 in Ex.P17 to Rs.1,01,52,167/- in their second Legal Notice dated 19.07.2019 in Ex.P18.
33. It is submitted that they had no knowledge about the delay _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.17 of 47 C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.37 of 2021 in payment for the invoice since there was no demand or reminder given to the defendants and they came to know only after the receipt of the court notice in this suit. It is submitted that the plaintiff did not take any effort to contact the defendants prior to filing of the suit and hence the plaintiff has not fulfilled the mandatory provisions before invoking of Commercial Courts Act.
34. It is submitted that the transaction is not only between the plaintiff and the first defendant but also between the plaintiff, first defendant and their vendor namely M/s.Honeywell International India Pvt. Ltd. and the first defendant’s customer M/s.Ocean Lifespace Pvt. Limited. It is further submitted that they are the necessary parties to this proceedings, but, the plaintiff failed to implead them in this proceeding. On the above grounds, it is therefore prayed for dismissal of this suit.
35. After the Written Statement filed by the defendants, the plaintiff has filed Reply Statement under Order VIII Rule 9 of C.P.C. In the Reply Statement, it has been stated that the defendants have admitted the Purchase Orders placed by them and the supply was made for a sum _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.18 of 47 C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.37 of 2021 of Rs.1,75,77,063/- by the plaintiff as in Table No.1. After adjusting a sum of Rs.78,24,897/- paid by the second defendant on behalf of the first defendant, the first defendant was liable to pay only the balance amount of Rs.1,01,52,167/- towards principal.
36. It is submitted that vide Ex.P15 Letter dated 11.02.2019, the third defendant on behalf of the first defendant agreed to pay a sum of Rs.80,46,067/- out of the above outstanding amount of Rs.1,01,52,167/- to the supplier of the plaintiff M/s.Honeywell International India Pvt. Ltd.
37. However, the same was revoked by the first defendant by Ex.P20 Letter dated 15.02.2019. The copy of Ex.P20 Letter dated 15.02.2019 was sent by the first defendant to the plaintiff. The original office copy of Ex.P20 Letter dated 15.02.2019 is with the first defendant and same has not been filed along with the Written Statement filed by the first defendant wantonly and deliberately.
38. It is submitted that fact remains that the first defendant _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.19 of 47 C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.37 of 2021 represented by the third defendant initially agreed to pay the said amount of Rs.80,46,067/- to M/s.Honeywell International India Pvt. Ltd. vide Ex.P15 Letter dated 11.02.2019 on the understanding that the plaintiff has to supply the materials to the first defendant to the said amount. However, due to the communication gap the materials were not supplied.
39. It is further submitted that in view of the above default, the first defendant vide Ex.P20 Letter dated 15.02.2019 specifically stated that they are revoking Ex.P15 Letter dated 11.02.2019 and requested M/s.Honeywell International India Pvt. Ltd. to return the said amount of Rs.80,46,067/- to the first defendant. It is submitted that since the supplier M/s.Honeywell International India Pvt. Ltd. has not returned the amount, the defendants approached the plaintiff and demanded to adjust the same amount of Rs.80,46,067/- towards the purchase order of their client M/s.Ocean Lifespace Pvt. Limited vide Ex.P21 Purchase Order No.Kone-P/PO/19-20/0067 dated 22.04.2019 placed to the plaintiff which is evidenced by Ex.P16 Letter of the defendant to the plaintiff dated 24.05.2019.
_____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.20 of 47 C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.37 of 2021
40. It is submitted that in the Purchase Order dated 22.04.2019, a reference was made about a Letter dated 02.04.2019 sent by the first defendant to the said M/s.Ocean Lifespace Pvt. Limited pertaining to the above adjustments. It is submitted that the first defendant has not produced the said Letter dated 02.04.2019 before this Court deliberately which Letter will establish the falsity of the defendants. It is submitted that the plaintiff is giving notice to the first defendant to produce the said Letter dated 02.04.2019.
41. It is submitted that the defendants having re-adjusted the amount of Rs.80,46,067/- paid by them to M/s.Honeywell International India Pvt. Ltd. as detailed above is liable to pay the suit claim. However, the first respondent made a false statement alleging as if the amount of Rs.80,46,067/- paid to M/s.Honeywell International India Pvt. Ltd. has not been reverted and hence they are not liable to pay the said amount and agreed to pay only a sum of Rs.20,59,693/-. Therefore, the statement made by the defendants in the Written Statement is liable to be rejected. _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.21 of 47 C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.37 of 2021
42.The defendants thereafter file Rejoinder Statement to the Reply Statement filed by the plaintiff under Order VIII Rule 9 of CPC, wherein, it has been stated that the plaintiff in the Reply Statement has carefully coining the words in accordance to their own convenience by subliming the very important facts of that commercial transaction which has caused the entirety of this suit filed by the plaintiff.
43. It is submitted by the third defendant that the plaintiff has made it with purpose and with certain of the hidden agenda with them in order to sublime and/or not to reveal their business foul play in this regard. It is submitted by the third defendant that the stated “Letter of Revocation” in Ex.P20 dated 15.02.2019 was not sent by the first defendant as stated by the plaintiff in their Reply Statement. But, it was the second defendant who has sent Ex.P20 Letter dated 15.02.2019 to the M/s.Honeywell International India Pvt. Ltd. It is submitted that the Ex.P20 Letter of Revocation dated 15.02.2019 has been done only in order to protect the interest of the second defendant who was not betrayed by the plaintiff for not supplying required material to the client of the first defendant namely, M/s.Ocean Lifespace Pvt. Limited. _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.22 of 47 C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.37 of 2021
44. It is submitted that the plaintiff had accepted to supply the required material to the client of the first defendant M/s.Ocean Lifespace Pvt. Limited for their Kone Project, for which, the second defendant had accepted to pay the debit balance that the plaintiff had with M/s.Honeywell International India Pvt. Ltd. to the value of Rs.80,46,067/-. But, the plaintiff has not supplied material, as accepted, in spite of the payment has been made to M/s.Honeywell International India Pvt. Ltd. by the second defendant to adjust the debit balance. This was evidential through Ex.D1 Email of Mr.Vijay of M/s.Honeywell International India Pvt. Ltd. dated 12.02.2019 and Ex.D2 Email from Mrs.Sangeetha Subramaniam of the plaintiff given in reply to Ex.D1 Email of Mr.Vijay of M/s.Honeywell International India Pvt. Ltd. dated 12.02.2019. It is submitted the full picture of the foul play is not elucidated by the plaintiff in their Reply Statement.
45. It is submitted that Email of Mr.S.K.Peter, the Managing Director of M/s.Ocean Lifespace Pvt. Limited clearly explains the events in full and complete. The plaintiff has not supplied the material as per their agreement/promise made to the defendants till 31.01.2019 and _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.23 of 47 C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.37 of 2021 hence, Managing Director of M/s.Ocean Lifespace Pvt. Limited has conducted a meeting at his office on the stated date and fixed Turn Around Time (TAT) to the first defendant for supply of material to them by 15.02.2021. It is submitted that the plaintiff has not delivered the material showing the reasons that their debit balances were not adjusted.
46. It is submitted that to prove them that they are wrong Mr.Vijay of M/s.Honeywell International India Pvt. Ltd. had sent Ex.D1 Email dated 12.02.2019 addressing to Ms.Sangeetha Subramanian of the plaintiff that their debit balance got adjusted through the payment made by the defendants. This Ex.D1 Email of the Mr.Vijay was acknowledged by Ms.Sangeetha on 13.02.2019 itself.
47. It is submitted that the plaintiff was well aware of the fact that they were paid by the second defendant. Hence, they shall have no qualms to supply the materials. It is submitted that however, they had purposefully delayed the supply till 15.02.2019, the red alert day set by M/s.Ocean Lifespace Pvt. Limited in order to expel them from the Kone Project so as the plaintiff could grab such order from the client of the first _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.24 of 47 C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.37 of 2021 defendant. It is finally stated that the defendants will pay a sum of Rs.20,59,693/- to the plaintiff.
48. On behalf of the defendants, Mr.Manickavasagam, Director of the first and second defendants was examined as D.W.1. The following documents were marked as Exhibits on the side of the defendants:-
Sl. Exhibits Date Description of Documents No. 1 Ex.D1 12.02.2019 Email from M/s.Honey Well International Pvt. Ltd.
2 Ex.D2 13.02.2019 Email from Mrs.Sangeetha Subramaniam of the plaintiff 3 Ex.D3 01.11.2013 Certificate of Incorporation of the first defendant 4 Ex.D4 08.06.2005 Certificate of Incorporation of the second defendant 5 Ex.D5 08.02.2019 Letter of the second defendant to M/s.Honey Well International Pvt.
Ltd. for adjustment of amount in plaintiff’s account 6 Ex.D6 17.02.2019 Printout of Email communication between the defendants and M/s.Honey Well International Pvt.
Ltd. as a proof of the payment 7 Ex.D7 01.09.2021 Original Board Resolution of the first defendant 8 Ex.D8 01.09.2021 Original Board Resolution of the second defendant _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.25 of 47 C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.37 of 2021 Sl. Exhibits Date Description of Documents No. 9 Ex.D9 15.02.2019 Letter of the defendants 10 Ex.D10 19.02.2019 Printout of Email from Mr.S.K.Peter, MD of M/s.Ocean Life Spaces Pvt. Ltd.
11 Ex.D11 Certificate of the Section 65B of the Evidence Act
49. I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the learned counsel for the defendants. I have perused the Plaint, Written Statement, Reply Statement and the Rejoinder Statement filed by the respective parties. I have also perused the Exhibits marked by the plaintiff and the defendants and the Proof Affidavits filed by P.W.1 and D.W.1. I have also perused and considered the deposition of P.W.1 and D.W.1.
50. Both the plaintiff and the first and second defendants source material for sale from their principal supplier M/s.Honeywell International India Pvt. Ltd. for their trading purpose. The first and second defendants have also sourced materials from the plaintiff for their trading purpose.
_____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.26 of 47 C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.37 of 2021
51. Like any other trader/dealer, M/s.Honywell International India Pvt. Ltd. appears to have made credit sales to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also made credit sale to the first and second defendants.
52. Although the respective witnesses have deposed evidence through Proof Affidavit and were subjected to cross-examination, the documents marked as Exhibits both by the plaintiff and the defendants bring out the facts clearly. Both the first and second defendants are managed by the third defendant. The communications that were marked as exhibits bring out the above facts.
53. It is an admitted fact that the first defendant owed the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,79,77,063/- for the supplies made by the plaintiff in response to Five Purchase Orders placed between March, 2018 and April, 2018 as detailed in Table No.1.
54. In the course of the business, second defendant had paid an excess of Rs.78,24,897/- to the plaintiff. Second defendant had therefore _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.27 of 47 C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.37 of 2021 asked the plaintiff to adjust the aforementioned amount of Rs.78,24,897/- against towards the aforesaid outstanding amount of Rs.1,79,77,063 /- of the first defendant.
55. Thus, the plaintiff adjusted a sum of Rs.78,24,897/- against the aforesaid outstanding amount of Rs.1,79,77,06/- to the plaintiff. After adjustment of Rs.78,24,897/-, the first defendant still owed plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,01,52,167/- [Rs.1,79,77,063– Rs.78,24,897]. The second defendant therefore issued Ex. P10 & P11 cheques to the plaintiff as detailed below:-
Sl. No. Date Amount Ex. No. 1 30.11.2018 Rs.51,52,168/- Ex.P9 2 30.12.2018 Rs.50,00,000/- Ex.P10 Rs.1,01,52,168/-
56. Ex.P.9 Cheque dated 30.11.2018 for Rs.51,52,168/- and Ex.P.10 Cheque dated 31.12.2018 for Rs.50,00,000/- were issued by the second defendant after a sum of Rs.78,24,297/- was adjusted by the plaintiff against the aforesaid outstanding amount of Rs.1,79,77,063.00 of the first defendant.
_____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.28 of 47 C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.37 of 2021
57. Meanwhile, a sum of Rs.80,46,067/- was paid by M/s.Ocean Lifespaces India Pvt. Ltd. as advance to the second defendant. The second defendant on 31.01.2019 in turn transferred the aforesaid amount of Rs.80,46,067/- to M/s.Honeywell International India Pvt. Ltd.as advance for supplies to be effected by latter.
58. It appears that there was meeting between the representative of Honeywell International India Pvt.Ltd. and second defendant on 31.1.2019. Pursuant to the aforesaid meeting, the second defendant has issued Ex.P14 Letter dated 08.02.2019 to M/s.Honeywell International India Pvt. Ltd.
59. By Ex.P14 Letter dated 08.02.2019,the second defendant has confirmed as follows:-
“We hereby confirm the request to adjust the remitted payment of INR 80,46,067.00 on 31 Jan-19 with (UTR No.KKBKH03100860286) to Honeywell International India Pvt.Ltd. Unitech Trade Center, 5th Floor, Sector 43, Block C, Sushantlok, Phase 1, Gurgaon, Haryana 122 002 India, in account of M/s.Intek Security Systems Pvt.Limited and it will not get reversed under any circumstances due to any reason whatsoever in future and it will be final, firm and binding” _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.29 of 47 C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.37 of 2021
60. Ex.P14 Letter dated 08.02.2019 and Ex.P.20 letter dated 15.02.2019 is signed by the third defendant on behalf of the second defendant. Ex.P14 Letter dated 08.02.2019 does not state that the aforesaid amount that was paid by the second defendant to M/s.Honeywell International India Pvt.Ltd., was towards any independent Purchase Order or was for discharging the outstanding liability amount of Rs.1,01,52,167/- [Rs.1,79,77,063 – Rs.78,24,897] of the first defendant to the plaintiff.
61. By Ex.P15 Letter dated 11.02.2019,the third defendant confirmed the arrangement in Ex.P14 Letter dated 08.02.2019 to the plaintiff. Ex.P15 Letter dated 11.02.2019 reads as under:-
“We had a outstanding due of Rs.1,01,05,760/- payable to you out of which Rs.80,46,067 has been remitted to M/s.Honeywell International India Pvt.Ltd., Unitech Trade Center, 5th Floor, Sector 43, Block C, Sushant Lok, Phase-1, Gurgaon, Haryana 122 002 India on your behalf on 31 Jan-19 with UTR No.KKBKH03100860286. Intimation
to credit this amount to your account has been given to Honeywell via our letter dated 01.02.2019 and 02.02.2019.
We hereby confirm that the balance of Rs.20,59,693/- will be paid to you on or before 28.02.2019 which is final and binding.” _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.30 of 47 C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.37 of 2021
62. In Ex.P.20 letter dated 15.02.2019, the third defendant has reiterated the position in Ex.P.14 Letter dated 08.02.2019, Ex.P.15 Letter dated 11.02.2019 and Ex.P.20 Letter dted 15.02.2019 to M/s.Honeywell International India Pvt.Ltd., plaintiff. Thus, the defendants wanted to discharge part of the outstanding amount of Rs.1,01,05,760/- from and out of Rs.80,46,067 transferred to Rs.80,46,067/- leaving a balance of Rs.20,59,693/- only due as outstanding amount to the plaintiff.
63. Since Rs.20,59,693/- was confirmed as the balanceEx.P15 Letter dated 11.02.2019, it is clear that the intention of the defendants was to liquidate the aforesaid balance amount of Rs.1,01,52,167/- [Rs.1,79,77,063 – Rs.78,24,897] of the first defendant to the plaintiff from and of Rs.80,46,067/- transferred to M/s.Honeywell International India Pvt.Ltd. The Second defendant also issued Ex.P11 cheque dated 28.02.2019 for Rs.20,59,693/- to the plaintiff towards the balance amount as detailed below:-
Date Amount Ex. No. 28.02.2019 Rs.20,59,693/- Ex.P11
64. Ex.P.11 Cheque dated 28.02.2019was issued to the plaintiff Ex.P.14 Letter dated 08.02.2019 was issued to M/s.Honeywell International India Pvt.Ltd. and Ex.P15 letter dated 11.02.2019 was issued to the plaintiff. _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.31 of 47 C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.37 of 2021
65. It appears that the plaintiff was to supply goods for and on behalf of M/s.Honeywell International India Pvt. Ltd. to M/s Ocean Lifespaces India Pvt. Ltd. on behalf of the second defendant.
66. Thus, at the time of transfer of Rs.80,46,067/- on 31.01.2019, the second defendant gave instruction to M/s.Honeywell International India Pvt. Ltd. to credit the aforesaid amount to the plaintiff’s ledger in the M/s.Honeywell International India Pvt. Ltd. for being set-off against the plaintiff due to the latter.
67. Meanwhile, by Ex.P.21 Purchase Order dated 22.04.2019, M/s.Ocean Lifespaces India Pvt. Ltd. directly placed a separate Purchase Order for a sum of Rs.1,06,86,949.66on the plaintiff.
68. In Ex.P.21 Purchase Order dated 22.04.2019, the address for delivery was M/s.KONE Elevator India Private Limited, Pillaipakkam, Sriperumbudur. As per Ex.P21 Purchase Order dated 22.04.2019, the aforesaid amount of Rs.80,46,067/- transferred by the second defendant to M/s.Honeywell International India Pvt. Ltd.was to be adjusted as per Letter _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.32 of 47 C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.37 of 2021 dated 02.04.2019 of the second defendant.
69. The defendants have not filed the office copy of the Letter dated 02.04.2019 of the second defendant the same. The defendants are/ would be in possession of the copy of letter dated 02.04.2019. Failure to furnish the same, invites an adverse inference against the defendants.
70. As per Ex.P21 Purchase Order dated 22.04.2019, the balance was to be paid in cash by the M/s.Ocean Lifespaces India Pvt. Ltd. to the plaintiff. Relevant portion of the terms in Ex.P.21 Purchase Order dated 22.04.2019 reads as under:-
Rs.80,46,067/- Materials Supply paid by M/s.Honeywell Ref. Metronics Letter Dated 02.04.2019 and balance payment will be paid against the materials with Invoice/DC signed by Site Engineer / Project Manager.
71. The plaintiff has also supplied goods to M/s.Ocean Lifespaces India Pvt. Ltd. against Ex.P21 Purchase Order dated 22.04.2019 of latter and raised Ex.P22 Tax Invoice dated 24.05.2019 and Ex.P23 Tax Invoice dated 30.05.2019 on the said M/s.Ocean Lifespaces India Pvt. Ltd. for a total sum of Rs.1,00,66,316.86 [Rs.17,50,814.38 + _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.33 of 47 C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.37 of 2021 Rs.83,15,502.48].
72. Ex.P11 Cheque dated 28.02.2019 which was given by the second defendant is against the balance outstanding of Rs.20,59,693/- after adjustment of Rs.80,46,067/- paid to M/s.Honeywell International India Pvt.
Ltd. in terms of Ex.P15 Letter dated 11.02.2019 was dishonoured. Till date, the defendants have not paid the amount.
73. Meanwhile, by Ex.P.16 dated 24.05.2019, the second defendant asked the plaintiff to re-adjust the sum of Rs.80,46,067/- to the account of M/s.Ocean Lifespaces India Pvt.Ltd.against the order No.KONE- P/PO/19-20/0067. Ex.P.16 reads as under:-
“With reference to the sum of Rs.80,46,067/- paid to M/s.Honewell International India Pvt., Ltd., on 31.01.2019 which was adjusted to your account as per our letter dated 01.02.2019 and 08.02.2019 to M/s.Honeywell International India Pvt.Ltd. Request you to re-adjust the said sum of Rs.80,46,067/- to the account of M/s.Ocean Lifespaces India Private Ltd., against their order No.KONE/PO/19-20/0067 dated 22.04.2019 raised to you.”
74. Thus, the second defendant asked the plaintiff to re-adjust the aforesaid amount of Rs.80,46,067/- to the account of the M/s.Ocean Lifespaces India Pvt. Ltd. against Ex.P21 Purchase Order dated _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.34 of 47 C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.37 of 2021 22.04.2019 for a sum of Rs.1,06,86,949.66.
75. It is thus clear, the plaintiff was merely required to make book entries in its book of accounts. The amount of Rs.80,46,067/- which was to be earlier adjusted against the outstanding due of Rs.1,01,52,167/- [Rs.1,79,77,063 – Rs.78,24,897) of the first defendant to plaintiff as per Ex.P.14 Letter dated 08.02.2019 and Ex.P15 Letter dated 11.02.2019 was not longer to be adjusted against the aforesaid outstanding of Rs.1,01,52,167/-.
76. Instead, Rs.80,46,067/- was to be adjusted against supplies made by the plaintiff against Ex.P21 Purchase Order dated 22.04.2019 for a sum of Rs.1,06,86,949.66.
77. Thus, the amount of Rs.80,46,067/- paid by M/s.Ocean Lifespaces India Pvt. Ltd was adjusted against supplies made by the plaintiff to M/s.Ocean Lifespaces India Pvt. Ltd. for a total sum of Rs.1,00,66,316.86 [Rs.17,50,814.38 + Rs.83,15,502.48]vide Ex.P22 Tax Invoice dated 24.05.2019 and Ex.P23 Tax Invoice dated 30.05.2019 against Ex.P21 Purchase Order dated 22.04.2019 for a sum of Rs.1,06,86,949.66. _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.35 of 47 C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.37 of 2021
78. Ex.P24 is the Ledger Account of M/s.Ocean Lifespaces India Pvt. Ltd. maintained by the plaintiff for the period between 01.04.2019 and 31.03.2020 of the plaintiff also indicates that the plaintiff has made an entry to the effect that the aforesaid sum of Rs.80,46,067/- was being adjusted on a Journal Entry dated 24.04.2019 against supplies made against Ex.P21 Purchase Order dated 22.04.2019 for a sum of Rs.1,06,86,949.66.
79. It is clear thus clear that that the first defendant still owed the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,01,52,167/-. Only as sum of Rs.78,24,897/- was adjusted against the outstanding due of Rs.1,79,77,063/- of the first defendant to plaintiff.
80. It is under these circumstances, Ex.P17 Legal Notice dated 23.04.2019 was issued by the plaintiff's counsel to the second defendant after the Ex.P11 Cheque dated 28.02.2019 issued for an amount of Rs.20,59,693/- in favour of the plaintiff was dishonoured.
81. In Ex.P17 Legal Notice dated 23.04.2019, it was merely _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.36 of 47 C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.37 of 2021 stated that the second defendant had confirmed having issued Ex.P11 Cheque dated 28.02.2019 for an amount of Rs.20,59,693/- in favour of the plaintiff.
82. Thus, the transaction covered by Ex.P21 Purchase Order dated 22.04.2019 is an independent sale transaction and the payment of Rs.80,46,067/- which was earlier paid by the second defendant to M/s.Honeywell International India Pvt. Ltd. was asked by the second defendant to be re-adjusted against Ex.P21 Purchase Order dated 22.04.2019.
83. Thus, the balance outstanding amount of Rs.1,01,52,167/- against the 5 Purchase Orders as detailed in Table No.1 have remained unpaid as the amount of Rs.80,46,067/- has been re-adjusted against the Ex.P22 Invoice dated 24.05.2019 and Ex.P23 Invoice dated 30.05.2019 pursuant to Ex.P.21 Purchase Order dated 22.04.2019 raised by M/s.Ocean Lifespaces India Pvt. Ltd.on the plaintiff as is reflected in Ex.P24 Ledger Account maintained by the plaintiff for M/s.Ocean Lifespaces India Pvt. Ltd.
_____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.37 of 47 C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.37 of 2021
84. It is also evident that first and second defendants are doing business together. The defendants have filed only one Written Statement and Rejoinder Statement to the Reply Statement filed by the plaintiff. The Proof Affidavit was filed by Mr.Manickavasagam as D.W.1 in the capacity of Director of first and second defendants.
85. Thus, there is no dispute that the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.1,01,52,167/- from the defendants as the defendants have themselves admitted the aforesaid amount prior to the transactions as discussed above.
86. In the light of the above discussions, issues framed by this Court are answered as follows:-
Issue No.1 : Whether the contract for supply of goods was only between the plaintiff and the first defendant or between the plaintiff and all the defendants?
Answer : This issue is irrelevant. The second defendant appears to have clinched a purchase order from _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.38 of 47 C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.37 of 2021 M/s.Ocean Lifespace Pvt. Ltd. and depended on M/s.Honeywell International India Pvt. Ltd and plaintiff for supply of the goods. There appears to have been a meeting held on 31.01.2019 between the third defendant as the Director of the second defendant and Mr.Balathilak and Mr.Mohanraj of M/s.Honeywell International India Pvt. Ltd., pursuant to which Ex. P 14 dated 08.02.2019 and Ex.P15 dated 11.02.2019 Addressed to the M/s.Honeywell International India Pvt. Ltd and to the plaintiff.
Issue No.2 : Whether the a sum of Rs.80,46,067/- was paid to M/s.Honeywell International India Pvt. Ltd. on the instructions of the plaintiff?
Ans. This is not clear. This issue is also however not relevant. The amount of Rs.80,46,067/- was adjusted at the instructions of the third defendant on behalf of the second defendant as per Ex.P14 Letter dated 08.02.2019 addressed to M/s.Honeywell International India Pvt. Ltd.
_____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.39 of 47 C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.37 of 2021 followed by Ex.P15 Letter dated 11.02.2019 of the second defendant. Ex.P15 Letter dated 11.02.2019 and Ex.P.16 Letter dated 24.05.2019 duly signed by the third defendant in his capacity of the Director of the second defendant.
Issue No.3 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,01,52,167/- from the defendants?
Answer : Yes. The plaintiff is entitled to recover a Rs.1,01,52,167/- from the defendants jointly and severally. Though separate Purchase Orders were placed by the first defendant on the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.1.79.77.063/- as in Table, a sum of Rs.78,24,897/- was adjusted out excess paid by the second defendant to the plaintiff as per the instructions of the second defendant. Thus, amounts were partly earlier paid by the second defendant against the liability of the first defendant and later the second defendant has issued Ex.P11 Cheque dated 28.02.2019 for a sum of Rs.20,59,693/- was stated to be the _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.40 of 47 C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.37 of 2021 balance outstanding due of the first defendant after adjusting the amount of Rs.80,46,067/-
transferred to M/s.Honeywell International India Pvt. Ltd. by the second defendant. However, as per the instructions of the third defendant in Ex.P.16 Letter dated 24.05.2019, the amount of Rs.80,46,067/- was to be adjusted against supplies made against Ex.P.21 Purchase Order dated 22.04.2019 which are covered by Ex.P.22 Tax Invoice dated 24.05.2019 for Rs.17,50,814.38 and Ex.P.23 Tax Invoice dated 30.05.2019 for Rs.83,15,502.48. Thus, the adjustment of Rs.80,46,067/- was against independent Transaction covered by Ex.P.21 Purchase Order dated 22.04.2019 of M/s.Ocean Lifespaces India Pvt. Ltd raised on the plaintiff in terms of Ex.P.16 Letter dated 24.05.2019 of the second defendant issued by the third defendant.
Issue No.4 : Whether there was an agreement in respect of interest and, if not, whether the plaintiff is entitled _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.41 of 47 C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.37 of 2021 to interest at the rate of 24% per annum or at any other rate?
Answer : No. There was no agreement for the interest in the Invoice raised by the plaintiff. However, the transactions being commercial transactions. As per Ex.P1 to P3 Purchase Orders placed by the first defendant on the plaintiff, the first defendant requested 60 days, credit period by giving PDC (Post Dated Cheques) from the date of delivery and invoice. Transactions being commercial transactions, the Court is inclined to accrued interest at 13% per annum from the expiry of 60 th day from the date of Ex.P.7 Invoice dated 13.03.2018 as the balance due against rest of invoices in Table can be said to have been adjusted out of Rs.78,24,874 on the suit claim of Rs.1,01,52,167/- interest at 13% for the period of below from 13.05.2018 to 22.02.2021 is 1015 days.
_____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.42 of 47 C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.37 of 2021 Interest at 13% per annum on Rs.1,01,52,167/- = Rs.13,19,781.71 for the period from 13.05.2018 to 22.02.2021 Interest per day = Rs.3615.840 Rounded off = Rs.3,616/-
Interest for 1017 days( till institute
of the suit ) = Rs. 3616 x 1017 days
= Rs.36,77,472/- [A]
Pendent lite interest from 22.02.2021
to 09.06.2021 at 13% (107 days) = Rs. 3616 x 107 days
= Rs.3,86,912/- [B]
Total [A+B] = Rs.36,77,472 + 3,86,912
= Rs.40,64,384/-
Issue No.5 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any other relief?
Ans : Yes. The plaintiff is entitled to further interest at 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization .
87. In the result, the Suit is partly decreed in favour of the plaintiff for the principal amount of Rs.1,01,52,167/- as prayed for together with interest at 13% as calculated above for a sum of Rs.40,64,384/-. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.1,42,16,551 [Rs.40,64,384/- + _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.43 of 47 C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.37 of 2021 Rs.1,01,52,167] and further interest at 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization on the supplies effected by the plaintiff to the first defendant together with interest.
09.06.2023 Internet : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Jen/kkd Plaintiff's side witness:
B.Ravishankar : P.W.1
Defendants' side witness:
Manickavasagam : D.W.1
Documents exhibited by the Plaintiff:
Sl. Ex.Ps. Date Description of Documents
No
1 Ex.P1 02.03.2018 Purchase Order No.2080 issued by the first
defendant
2 Ex.P2 03.03.2018 Purchase Order No.2081 issued by the first
defendant
3 Ex.P3 05.03.2018 Purchase Order No.2084 issued by the first
defendant
4 Ex.P4 02.03.2018 Invoice No.GST/17-18/338 for
Rs.14,64,739/-
5 Ex.P5 05.03.2018 Invoice No.GST/17-18/397 for
Rs.40,43,884/-
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.44 of 47
C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.37 of 2021
6 Ex.P6 06.03.2018 Invoice No.GST/17-18/400 for
Rs.5,52,240/-
7 Ex.P7 13.03.2018 Invoice No.GST/17-18/426 for Rs.1,06,69,176/-
8 Ex.P8 26.04.2018 Invoice No.GST/17-18/47 for Rs.12,47,024/-
9 Ex.P9 30.11.2018 Original Cheque bearing No.002692 issued
by the defendant
10 Ex.P10 30.12.2018 Original Cheque bearing No.002693 issued by
the defendant
11 Ex.P11 28.02.2019 Original Cheque bearing No.000114 issued by
the defendant
12 Ex.P12 11.03.2019 Return Memo
13 Ex.P13 25.03.2019 Return Memo
14 Ex.P14 08.02.2019 Letter from the defendant to the plaintiff’s
supplier
15 Ex.P15 11.02.2019 Letter from the defendant to the plaintiff
admitting their liability
16 Ex.P16 24.05.2019 Letter by the defendant to the plaintiff’s supplier
company revoking the remittance
17 Ex.P17 23.04.2019 Office copy of the Legal Notice sent by the
plaintiff
18 Ex.P18 19.07.2019 Office copy of the Legal Notice sent by the
plaintiff
19 Ex.P19 - Statement of Accounts
20 Ex.P20 15.02.2019 Photocopy of the Letter from the first defendant
to M/s.Honey Well International Pvt. Ltd.
21 Ex.P21 22.04.2019 Purchase Order No.Kone-P/PO/19-20/0067, placed by M/s.Ocean Life Spaces India Pvt. Ltd. 22 Ex.P22 24.05.2019 Tax Invoice issued by the plaintiff to M/s.Ocean Life Spaces India Pvt. Ltd.
23 Ex.P23 30.05.2019 Tax Invoice issued by the plaintiff to M/s.Ocean Life Spaces India Pvt. Ltd.
24 Ex.P24 - Ledger Account of M/s.Ocean Life Spaces India Pvt. Ltd. maintained by the plaintiff 25 Ex.P25 26.09.2019 Original Board Resolution _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.45 of 47 C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.37 of 2021 Documents exhibited by the Defendants:
S.No. Ex.Ps. Date Prescription of Documents 1 Ex.D1 12,02,2019 E-mail from M/s.Honeywell International Pvt.Ltd.
2 Ex.D2 13.02.2019 E-mail from Mrs.Sangeetha Subramaniam of the plaintiff 3 Ex.D3 01.11.2013 Certificate of Incorporation of the 1st defendant 4 Ex.D4 08.06.2005 Certificate of Incorporation of the 2nd defendant 5 Ex.D5 08.02.2019 Letter of the 2nd defendant to M/s.Honeywell international for adjustment of amount in plaintiff's account 6 Ex.D6 17.02.2019 E-mail communication between the defendants and M/s.Honeywell International as a proof of the payment 7 Ex.D7 01.09.2021 Board of resolution of the 1st defendant 8 Ex.D8 01.09.2021 Board of resolution of the 2nd defendant 9 Ex.D9 15.02.2019 Letter of Defendants 10 Ex.D10 19.02.2019 E-mail from Mr.S.K.Peter MD of M/s.Ocean Life Spaces Pvt.Ltd., CSNJ _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.46 of 47 C.S(COMM.DIV.)No.37 of 2021 C.SARAVANAN, J.
jen/kkd Pre-Delivery Judgment in C.S.(C.D.)No.37 of 2021 09.06.2023 _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.47 of 47