Delhi District Court
Sh. Rajesh Kumar Arora vs Ms. Dipti Modi on 17 May, 2017
IN THE COURT OF ACJCCJARC, SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
DELHI
Presided By : Sh. Jay Thareja, DJS
Civil Suit No: 10839/2016
Sh. Rajesh Kumar Arora
M/s R.K. Associates,
At 786, Church Road,
Jwala Nagar, Shahdara,
Delhi110032 ... Plaintiff
Versus
Ms. Dipti Modi
M/s Uttam Abuwala & Co.
Chartered Accounts
Abuwala House, 409/410,
Gundecha Industrial Complex
Next to Big Bazar, Akurli Road,
Kandivali East, Mumbai400101
Also At:
Samast Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.
Nirav, B502, Asha Nagar,
90 Feet Road, Kandivali East,
Mumbai400101 ... Defendant
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.54,000/ (RUPEES
FIFTY FOUR THOUSAND ONLY) ALONGWITH
COSTS, PENDENTELITE AND FUTURE
INTEREST @ 18% PER ANNUM
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 30.09.2016
DATE OF FINAL ARGUMENTS : 03.05.2016
DATE OF DECISION : 17.05.2017
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendant seeking recovery of Rs.54,000/ alongwith costs and pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum.
Civil Suit No.10839/2016Rajesh Kumar Arora v Dipti Modi Page no. 1 of 5
2. The case of the plaintiff as discernible from the plaint and the documents filed alongwith the plaint is that the plaintiff is in the business of providing online facilities for filing of ereturns, VAT returns etc. from his Office at 786, Church Road, Jwala Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi32; that the defendant had come to the office of the plaintiff to avail the services of the plaintiff for filing of IBMA VAT returns for all quarters of financial year 2014 15; that the plaintiff had rendered the said service as well as other services to the defendant; that on 27.07.2015, the plaintiff had raised a bill of Rs.54,000/ upon the defendant qua the services rendered on 08.08.2014, 27.08.2014, 07.10.2014, 10.10.2014, 11.10.2014, 14.10.2014, 16.10.2014, 17.10.2014, 28.10.2014, 05.12.2014 and 13.12.2014; that the plaintiff had sent the said bill to the defendant alongwith requisite documents but the defendant had delayed the payment on some pretext or the other; that thereafter the plaintiff had served legal notice dated 08.06.2016 upon the defendant through speed post and that since, despite service of the said legal notice dated 08.06.2016, the defendant has not paid any money to the plaintiff, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.54,000/ alongwith pendentelite and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
3. A perusal of the ordersheets reveals that upon filing of this suit, the summons for settlement of issues of this suit were directed to be issued qua the defendant, on 07.10.2016. The said summons were served upon the defendant on 19.10.2016. After sufficiently waiting for appearance on behalf of the defendant till 08.02.2017, the defendant was proceeded exparte and ultimately, the exparte evidence of the plaintiff viz. PW1 Rajesh Kumar Arora was recorded on 28.03.2017.
Civil Suit No.10839/2016Rajesh Kumar Arora v Dipti Modi Page no. 2 of 5
4. I had heard Sh. Jitender Kumar, Ld. Advocate for plaintiff on 03.05.2016. During the hearing, the Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff had submitted that the case of the plaintiff stands duly proved by virtue of the unchallenged testimony of the plaintiff viz. PW1 Rajesh Kumar Arora and as such, the plaintiff is entitled to the decree, as prayed for.
5. After hearing the Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff and perusing the record of the Court file, I find that the present suit has been filed within the period of limitation against the defendant because the amount sought to be recovered from the defendant had become due to the plaintiff during 08.08.2014 and 13.12.2014 and the plaintiff has filed the present suit on 30.09.2016. Further, I find that this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this suit because the plea of the plaintiff that the defendant had visited his Office at 786, Church Road, Jwala Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi32 and that he had rendered services to the defendant from his Office at 786, Church Road, Jwala Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi32, has remained unrebutted/unchallenged.
6. In respect of the merits of the claim made by the plaintiff, I find that plaintiff has deposed in line with the averments made in the plaint. In his examination in chief, PW1 Rajesh Kumar Arora has expressly deposed that the defendant is liable to pay to him, the amount of Rs.54,000/ on account of outstanding bill dated 27.07.2015, Ex.PW1/A. In support of his oral testimony, PW1 Rajesh Kumar Arora has relied upon invoice bill dated 27.07.2015, Ex.PW1/A, emails sent by the defendant to the plaintiff, Ex.PW1/B (colly) (13 pages), certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act, Civil Suit No.10839/2016 Rajesh Kumar Arora v Dipti Modi Page no. 3 of 5 1872, Ex.PW1/C, legal notice dated 08.06.2016, Ex.PW1/D, two postal receipts, Ex.PW1/E, online tracking report along with certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act, 1872, Ex.PW1/F (colly), copy of conversations between plaintiff and the defendant on emails, Ex.PW1/G (colly) (6 pages) and aadhar card, Ex.PW1/H (OSR).
7. In my view, the unchallenged oral testimony of the plaintiff supported by the aforesaid documents establishes that the defendant is liable to pay Rs.54,000/ (Rupees Fifty Four Thousand Only) alongwith interest to the plaintiff.
8. In respect of the claim of pendentelite and future interest made by the plaintiff, I find that in the prayer clause, the plaintiff has sought pendentelite and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum. In my view, the claim of the plaintiff qua the pendentelite and future interest is excessive and in the present case, the ends of justice would be met, if the plaintiff is granted pendentelite interest at the rate of 9% per annum and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum.1
9. Thus, as a net result of the aforesaid discussion, the present suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.54,000/ (Rupees Fifty Four Thousand Only) alongwith costs, 1 As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Central Bank of India v Ravindra, AIR 2001 SC 3095, the grant of pendentelite and future interest is a subject matter of the discretion of the Court and not to be governed by the agreement between the parties. The Interest Act, 1978 contemplates the grant of interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 contemplate grant of interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Striking a balance between the principles laid down in the aforesaid enactments, the plaintiff has been granted pendentelite interest at the rate of 9% per annum and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
Civil Suit No.10839/2016Rajesh Kumar Arora v Dipti Modi Page no. 4 of 5 pendente lite interest at the rate of 9% per annum and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
10. Upon preparation of the decree sheet by the Reader, the file shall be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Court (Jay Thareja)
today on 17.05.2017 ACJ/CCJ/ARC/Shahdara
Karkardooma Courts/Delhi
Civil Suit No.10839/2016
Rajesh Kumar Arora v Dipti Modi
Page no. 5 of 5