Delhi District Court
Sumit Bansal vs Continental Construction Limited on 4 April, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAHUL BHATIA ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE01, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS DJ453/2021
Sh. Sumit Bansal
S/o late Sh. B.L. Bansal,
A67, Second Floor,
Defence Colony, New Delhi110024 ....Plaintiff
VERSUS
1 M/s Continental Construction Ltd.
Having its registered office at :
Continental House, 28,
Nehru Place, New Delhi110019.
2 Mr. Manjeet Singh Basi
Director of M/s Continental Construction Ltd.
Continental House, 28,
Nehru Place, New Delhi110019.
3 Mr. Mohinder Kumar Verma
Director of M/s Continental Construction Ltd.
Continental House, 28,
Nehru Place, New Delhi110019.
4 Mr. Vijay Kumar Verma
Director of M/s Continental Construction Ltd.
Continental House, 28,
Nehru Place, New Delhi110019. ....Defendants
CS DJ453/2021 Sh. Sumit Bansal Vs. M/s Continental Construction Ltd. Pg. 1 of 8
Date of Institution : 02.07.2021
Date of Reserving judgment : 14.03.2024
Date of Judgment : 04.04.2024
Judgment:
1.The present suit has been filed by plaintiff for recovery of sum of Rs.9,05,405/ along with pendentelite and future interest.
Plaintiff's case
2. The case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff is a practicing advocate in Delhi duly registered with Bar Council of Delhi and is running a law office and various advocates are associated with him. That defendant no.1 is a limited company and defendants no.2 to 5 are its Directors. It is stated that defendants were in litigation with the State Bank of India before Hon'ble Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (in short 'Hon'ble DRAT'), Delhi in appeal bearing No.313/2015 which had arisen out of the decision of the Original Application No.37/1998 duly decided by the Hon'ble Debt Recovery TribunalII (in short 'Hon'ble DRT'), New Delhi.
3. It is further stated that in the month of November, 2017, defendants no.1, 3 & 4 had approached the plaintiff for conducting their pending case and appointed him as their Advocate. It is further stated that it was agreed between the parties that fee of Rs.55,000/ per appearance would be charged in case plaintiff appears before Hon'ble DRAT and in case Ms. Sumi Anand, associate of plaintiff CS DJ453/2021 Sh. Sumit Bansal Vs. M/s Continental Construction Ltd. Pg. 2 of 8 appears before Hon'ble DRAT, fee of Rs.25,000/ per appearance was fixed and if any other associate of plaintiff appeared, fee was fixed at Rs.15,000/ per appearance. Based upon the understanding between the parties, plaintiff and his associates appeared before the Hon'ble DRAT on various occasions and various invoices were raised. It is further stated that till 23.02.2018, defendants cleared all their invoices starting from 18.11.2017 but defaulted thereafter and amount of pending invoices raised by plaintiff comes to Rs.7,30,000/.
4. It is stated that during the pendency of the said case, defendant had settled the matter and application was filed before Hon'ble DRAT with respect to settlement and withdrawal of appeal.
5. As such, it is claimed by plaintiff that invoices corresponding to 18 appearances before Hon'ble DRT and Hon'ble DRAT by himself and his associates are pending and have not been paid. It is further stated that plaintiff issued emails dated 31.10.2018, 13.11.2018 and 08.01.2019 to defendant requesting to pay the amount. It is further stated that on 21.01.2019, plaintiff received a payment of Rs.1,56,959/ against the total outstanding amount and as such, the amount due to be paid by defendant stood at Rs.5,73,041/ It is further stated that the said amount was not paid by defendants who are liable to pay the same. The plaintiff has also claimed interest @ 24% per annum from 21.01.2019 till filing of the suit and the said amount comes to Rs.3,32,364/. Hence, the defendants are liable to pay sum of Rs.9,05,405/ along with pendentelite and future interest CS DJ453/2021 Sh. Sumit Bansal Vs. M/s Continental Construction Ltd. Pg. 3 of 8 @ 24% per annum. Based upon the above, the plaintiff has filed the present suit.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CASE :
6. Summons were served to defendants on 18.08.2021 who appeared and defendant no.1 filed Written Statement along with application under Section 5 of Limitation Act and separate application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was filed by defendant no.3. On 28.09.2021, the application under Order V Rule 1(1) filed by defendant no.3 was allowed and Written Statement was taken on record. Further, No Written Statement was filed by the defendants no.1, 2, 4 & 5 and their right to file Written Statement was closed vide order dated 29.08.2022. Thereafter, vide order dated 16.12.2022, defendants no.1, 2 & 5 were proceeded exparte. Vide order dated 20.07.2023, defendant no.3 withdrew his application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
7. Thereafter, on 05.10.2023, defendant no.3 filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC which was allowed vide order dated 16.11.2023. In the said application, it was stated that defendant no.1 was initially being run by defendants no.2 to 5. However, certain dispute arose between defendants no.2 to 5 regarding running of defendant no.1 and as such, a Company Petition under Section 397 (1) CPC of Companies Act, 1956 was filed before Company Law Board being CP No.44 & 61 of 2002. Vide order dated 16.05.2008, the Hon'ble Company Law Board was pleased to issue directions to CS DJ453/2021 Sh. Sumit Bansal Vs. M/s Continental Construction Ltd. Pg. 4 of 8 divide profit and losses of the defendant no.1 company in four parts in the ratio of 43:21.21:50.50:14 for Basi Group, Chander Verma Group, Mohinder Verma Group and Vijay Verma Group respectively. Defendant no.3 had submitted that he was only liable to pay 21.50 % share in the company and had paid his share of amount claimed by the plaintiff vide cheque dated 16.01.2019 which has been admitted by plaintiff in his plaint. Based upon this assertion, application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC was allowed and defendant no.3 was deleted from the array of parties. Thereafter, on 02.01.2024, the original defendant no.4 was proceeded exparte and the matter was fixed for exparte plaintiffs' evidence.
PLAINTIFFS' EVIDENCE :
8. Plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and relied upon the following documents : Sl. NO. DOCUMENT EXIHBIT 1 Copy of Identity Card issued by Ex.PW1/1 BCD. (OSR) 2 Internet generated copy of company Ex.PW1/2 master data of defendant no.1.
3 Copies of 18 bills for appearances. Ex.PW1/3 to
Ex.PW1/20
4 Certified copies of ordersheets of Ex.PW1/21 to
Hon'ble DRT and Hon'ble DRAT. Ex.PW1/35
5 Copy of Email dated 31.10.2018. Ex.PW1/36
6 Copy of Email dated 13.11.2018. Ex.PW1/37
7 Copy of Email dated 08.01.2019. Ex.PW1/38
CS DJ453/2021 Sh. Sumit Bansal Vs. M/s Continental Construction Ltd. Pg. 5 of 8
8 Certificate under Section 65 of Indian Ex.PW1/39
Evidence Act.
9 Copy of statement of account of Ex.PW1/40
plaintiff for the period 01.01.2019 to
31.01.2019 showing the credit of
amount from Mr. Chander Verma,
Director of defendant no.1.
10 Copy of Legal Notice along with Ex.PW1/41
postal receipts and tracking report. (colly) 11 Copy of email dated 22.12.2020 Ex.PW1/46 written by defendants.
12 Copy of Email sent by plaintiff to Ex.PW1/47 defendants dated 24.12.2020.
9. Thereafter, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff addressed his arguments in line with his plaint.
10.I have heard the exparte final arguments and have perused the material on record.
ANALYSIS & REASONING :
11.The plaintiff has relied upon the invoices sent by him to defendants being Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/20. Certified copies of ordersheets of Hon'ble DRAT and Hon'ble DRT, Ex.PW1/21 to Ex.PW1/35 have also been placed on record.
12.A perusal of the said invoices and ordersheets would reveal that that plaintiff and his associates have appeared before Hon'ble DRAT and Hon'ble DRT as per the understanding between the parties and amount of invoices is as per appearance. Reminder emails CS DJ453/2021 Sh. Sumit Bansal Vs. M/s Continental Construction Ltd. Pg. 6 of 8 Ex.PW1/36, Ex.PW1/37 and Ex.PW1/38 have also been proved along with Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW1/39. Thus, plaintiff has been able to show that he has been raising invoices for the legal services provided to the defendant no.1 company. The fact is also corelated by the application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC filed by original defendant no.3 stating that he had paid his share or amount of invoices raised by plaintiff.
13.Thus, it is clear that certain services were provided by plaintiff to defendants and invoices raised prior to 23.02.2018 have been duly paid. Certified copy of the ordersheets, Ex.PW1/21 to Ex.PW1/35 would reveal that plaintiff and his associates have appeared before Hon'ble DRAT and Hon'ble DRT and the amount of invoices is co related to the plaintiff or his associates being appearing before the court. Apart from original defendant no.3, none of the defendants have filed their Written Statements. As such, the averments and the evidence of the plaintiff have gone unrebutted. Infact, the averments of the plaintiff have been corroborated by the application filed by original defendant no.3. In view of this fact, it is clear that defendant no.1 is liable to pay outstanding amount of Rs.5,73,041/.
14. Further, plaintiff has also claimed interest @ 24% per annum from the date of last payment received from defendants till filing of the suit. However, no agreement has been placed on record to show that parties have agreed to an interest @ 24% per annum on the delayed payments. Invoices raised by defendants being Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/20 also do not reveal that any interest was chargeable in CS DJ453/2021 Sh. Sumit Bansal Vs. M/s Continental Construction Ltd. Pg. 7 of 8 case of default or delay in payment of the invoice amount. As such, no legal basis for interest @ 24% per annum before filing of the suit is made out.
15.In view of above discussion, plaintiff is entitled to a decree of Rs.5,73,041/ against defendant no.1. Since defendants no.2, 3 & 4 are Directors of defendant no.1 and no specific role has been assigned to them, they cannot be held liable for the dues of the defendant no.1. Plaintiff is further entitled to simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of suit till realization of the same. Cost of the suit is also awarded to plaintiff. Decreesheet be prepared accordingly.
16.File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open (RAHUL BHATIA)
Court on 04.04.2024 Additional District Judge01(SE),
Saket Courts, New Delhi.
CS DJ453/2021 Sh. Sumit Bansal Vs. M/s Continental Construction Ltd. Pg. 8 of 8