Delhi District Court
Sh. Sanjay Jain vs M/S Gemini Polycoats Pvt. Ltd on 20 February, 2015
1
In the Court of Anubhav Jain, Civil Judge05, Central District, Tis Hazari
Court, Delhi.
Suit No. 415/14
Unique ID No. 02401C0522562012
Sh. Sanjay Jain, S/o Sh. Bir Sen Jain,
Proprietor M/s. Vardhman Chemical,
1197, Baradari, Behind Novelty Cinema,
Delhi06 ............Plaintiff
Versus
1. M/s Gemini Polycoats Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Directors Sh. Rajeev Khurana
And Smt. Meena Khurana
2. Sh. Rajeev Khurana,
M/s Gemini Polycoats Pvt. Ltd.
3. Smt. Meena Khurana, Director
M/s Gemini Polycoats Pvt. Ltd.
All at:
E48, Mansarover Garden,
Near Kirti Nagar,New Delhi ............. Defendants.
Date of Institution:06.11.2012
Suit No. 415/14 Sanjay Jain Vs. M/S Gemini Polycoats Pvt. Ltd.
2
Date of final Decision: 06.02.2015
1. Present suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of Rs.
1,80,330/ along with pendente lite and future interest @ 15 %.
2. Brief facts of the case as per plaint are that plaintiff is the sole proprietor of
M/s. Vardhman Chemicals and is dealing in the business of different types of
chemicals goods. It is stated that defendant is a Private Limited Company and
defendant no. 2 and 3 are the Directors and incharge for the day to day affairs of
defendant no.1 company and the goods were regularly purchased by both
defendant no.2 and 3 for and on behalf of defendant no.1. It is further stated that
defendants were purchasing the goods regularly from the shop of the plaintiff
and used to make payment in installments. It is further stated in the plaint that
defendants purchased material from the plaintiff vide invoices bearing no. R
689 dated 26.08.2010 for a sum of Rs. 72,826/ and invoice no. R707 dated
01.11.2010 for a sum of Rs. 81,546/ and they made payment to the plaintiff to
tune of Rs. 35,220/. It is further stated that defendants does not furnish the
plaintiff with "C" Forms for the goods supplied to them vide the aforesaid
Invoices and as such defendants are also liable to pay sum of Rs. 10,833/ on
account of Sales Tax. It is further stated in the plaint that defendants promised
the plaintiff that they will clear the outstanding payment, but the defendants
Suit No. 415/14 Sanjay Jain Vs. M/S Gemini Polycoats Pvt. Ltd.
3
have failed to pay the same. It is further stated that plaintiff got issued a legal
notice dated 09.08.2012 by courier as well as speed post on 16.08.2012 upon the
defendants however despite service of the said legal notice, the defendants neither
complied with the said notice nor sent any response to the same. By way of
present suit plaintiff has sought recovery of Rs. 1,80,330/ along with pendente
lite and futuer interest @ 15% from the defendant.
3. In reply thereof written statement was filed by the defendant wherein under
preliminary objection it is stated that the present court does not have territorial
jurisdiction to try the present suit; that the plaintiff has concealed material facts;
that the suit is not filed by duly competent person; that the present plaint is liable
to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. In reply on the merits beside denying
other averments made in the plaint it is stated that defendant no. 1 was doing
manufacturing business at Biwadi, Alwar, Rajastan and all purchases were made
by defendant no.1 at Biwadi. It is further submitted by the defendants that against
two invoices of Rs. 72,826/ and Rs. 81,526/ part payment of Rs. 1,10,000/ was
made by the defendants i.e. payment of Rs. 60,000/ on 12.10.2010 and of Rs.
50,000/ on 28.02.2011 and with regard to remaining amount there was dispute as
material was not supplied according to specifications. It is further submitted that
one of the material i.e. "Scarlet Chrome" worth Rs. 40,000/ was not according to
Suit No. 415/14 Sanjay Jain Vs. M/S Gemini Polycoats Pvt. Ltd.
4
specifications and same was returned to representatives of plaintiff company but
no credit note was send by them. It was further averred that one material namely
"Alfa Blue" in second invoice dated 01.11.2010 was charged at Rs. 6000/ per kg
instead of Rs. 540/ per kg. It is further stated that the present suit of the plaintiff
is without any cause of action and is liable to be dismissed.
4. In reply thereof replication was filed by the plaintiff wherein he denied all the
facts as averred by the defendant in his written statement and reiterate those as
made by him in his plaint.
5. On the basis of the pleadings made by the parties following issues were framed
by the court vide its order dated 08.10.2013:
i) Whether the suit is bad for want of territorial jurisdiction, for want of cause of
action as well as for want of competence of the person who has filed the suit on
behalf of the plaintiff? OPD
ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of Rs. 1,41,587/ along with
pendent lite and future interest @ 18 % per annum as well as costs as prayed in
prayer clauses? OPP
iii) Relief.
Suit No. 415/14 Sanjay Jain Vs. M/S Gemini Polycoats Pvt. Ltd.
5
6. In support of his case plaintiff has filed his affidavit in evidence Ex. PW1/A
and relied upon the documents i.e. Invoices bearing No. R689 dated 26.08.2010
for a sum of Rs. 72,826/, Ex. PW1/1 and Invoice No R707 dated 01.11.2010 for
a sum of Rs. 81,546/ Ex. PW1/2, legal notice dated 09.08.2012 Ex. PW1/3,
Registered postal receipts are Ex.PW1/4 to Ex. PW1/6, Report of
Acknowledgment is Ex. PW1/7, Courier Booking Receipts Ex. PW1/8 to PW
1/10, Two original returned envelops Ex. PW1/11 & Ex. PW1/12.
7. In support of their defence defendant has filed affidavit of Sh. Rajiv Khurana
which is Ex. DW1/A and relied upon the documents i.e. Statement of account for
the period 11.10.2010 to 16.10.2010 Ex. DW1/1, Statement of Account for the
period 21.02.2011 to 01.03.2011 Ex. DW1/2.
8. I have Ld. Counsels for the parties and perused the case file carefully. My issue
wise findings are as follows.
Issue no. 1
9. Burden to prove present issue lies upon the defendant.
It is stated by the defendant that :
Suit No. 415/14 Sanjay Jain Vs. M/S Gemini Polycoats Pvt. Ltd.
6
a) Suit is bad for want of territorial jurisdiction
b) Suit is bad for want of cause of action
c) Suit is bad for want of competence of person who has filed the suit.
For sake of convinence it would be relevant to deal with each contention of the
defendant independently.
JURISDICTION
10. It is averred by the defendant that defendant no. 1 was doing manufacturing
business at Bhiwadi, Alwar Rajsthan, all cause of action took place within the
jurisdiction of Alwar, Rajsthan and no dealing took place at Delhi. It is stated that
that the orders were placed at Bhiwadi, Dist. Alwar and supplies were made at
Bhiwadi Alwar. It is further stated that goods were purchased by the defendants at
Bhiwadi and were supplied to the defendants at Bhiwadi.
In reply it is averred by the plaintiff that some of the payments and transactions
were made at Delhi and defendant are permanent residents of Delhi.
11. Before proceeding further on merits it would be relevant in here to reproduce
section 20 CPC:
Suit No. 415/14 Sanjay Jain Vs. M/S Gemini Polycoats Pvt. Ltd.
7
20. Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of
action arises.--Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall
be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction--
(a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more
than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and
voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for
gain; or
(b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time
of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or
carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in
such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants
who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain,
as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
Explanation.--A corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at
its sole or principal office in India or, in respect of any cause of
action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at
such place.
12. It would be further gainful to stae in here observations made by Hon'ble Apex
Court in A.V.M. Sales Corpn. v. Anuradha Chemicals (P) Ltd., (2012) 2 SCC
315
"14. It has often been stated by this Court that cause of action
comprises a bundle of facts which are relevant for the determination
Suit No. 415/14 Sanjay Jain Vs. M/S Gemini Polycoats Pvt. Ltd.
8
of the lis between the parties. In the instant case, since the invoices
for the goods in question were raised at Vijayawada, the goods were
dispatched from Vijayawada and the money was payable to the
respondent or its nominee at Vijayawada, in our view, the same
comprised part of the bundle of facts giving rise to the cause of action for the suit. At the same time, since the petitionerdefendant in the suit had its place of business at Calcutta and the agreement for supply of the goods was entered into at Calcutta and the goods were to be delivered at Calcutta, a part of the cause of action also arose within the jurisdiction of the courts at Calcutta for the purposes of the suit. Accordingly, both the courts within the jurisdiction of Calcutta and Vijayawada had jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure to try the suit, as part of the cause of action of the suit had arisen within the jurisdiction of both the said courts."
"20. A similar view was taken by this Court in Angile Insulations v. Davy Ashmore India Ltd. [(1995) 4 SCC 153] , wherein the Hon'ble Judges while referring to the decision of this Court in A.B.C. Laminart (P) Ltd. case [A.V.M. Sales Corpn. v.Anuradha Chemicals (P) Ltd., First Appeal (AS) No. 1352 of 1999, order dated 1812007 (AP)] , inter alia, held that where two courts have the jurisdiction consequent upon the cause of action or a part thereof arising therein, if the parties agree in clear and unambiguous terms to exclude the jurisdiction of the other, the said decision could not offend the provisions of Section 23 of the Contract Act. In such a case, the suit would lie in the court to be agreed upon by the parties."
Suit No. 415/14 Sanjay Jain Vs. M/S Gemini Polycoats Pvt. Ltd. 9
13. Coming to the present case in hand plaintiff's shop is at Delhi, goods were supplied from Delhi, invoices were prepared in Delhi. Further during the cross examination it is admitted by the defendant that payments were made to the plaintiff at Delhi only. Relevant extract of cross examination of defendant is as follows:
" The defendant has been making payments to the M/s Vardhman Chemicals by cheques only and my banker is Bank of India, Paharganj."
It is further admitted by defendant during his course of examination that plainitff's office is at Delhi and he use to supply goods to the defendant at Bhiwadi. Relevant extract of the cross examination is as follows: " The plaintiff company is situated at Khari Baoli Delhi but I never went to his shop. The plaintiff use to sent material to Bhiwadi and I never went to his shop. It is correct that plaintiff used to sent the material through transport."
Further it has been specifically stated in the invoice filed by the plaintiff that " All disputes are subject to Delhi Jurisdiction only"
As such, in view of the law and facts discussed above it cannot be said that this court does not have jurisdiction to try present suit.
NO CAUSE OF ACTION: Suit No. 415/14 Sanjay Jain Vs. M/S Gemini Polycoats Pvt. Ltd.10
14. It is case of plaintiff that defendant purchased material from the plaintiff, and he failed to make payment against Invoice No. R609 dated 31.12.2009 for a sum of Rs. 90,826/ and also fails to furnish C form for the goods supplied.
15. In reply it is stated by the defendant that he never made any purchase against above said invoice and he has already settled his accounts with the plaintiff and as such present suit is without any cause of action and is plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
16. It is settled principle of law that for the purpose of order VII rule 11 CPC facts as averred in the plaint are to be looked into.In this regard it would be gainful to refer herein observation made in Usha Gupta v. Subash Chand Tyagi, 2011 SCC 2012 AIR CC 359 at page 28 "4. It may be worthwhile to mention here that while considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the Court has to look at the averments made has the plaint by taking the same as correct on its face value as also the documents filed in support thereof. Neither defence of the defendant nor averments made in the application have to be given any weightage. Plaint has to be read as a whole together with the documents filed by the plaintiff. In Sri Kishan v. Shri Ram Kishan, 159 (2009) DLT 470 : 2009 (110) DRJ 323, a Single Judge of this Court observed thus, "Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code contemplates that where the suit appears from the averments made in the plaint to be barred by any law, then the plaint can be Suit No. 415/14 Sanjay Jain Vs. M/S Gemini Polycoats Pvt. Ltd. 11
rejected. The legal position is that to decide whether a plaint is laible to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11, averments in the plaint have to be read without looking at the defence and thereupon it has to be seen whether on the averments made in the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure gets attracted. For rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 the averments in the plaint should be unequivocal, categorical and specific leading to only conclusion that the plaint is barred......"
17. From the perusal of plaint it cannot be said that present suit of plaintiff is bad for want of cause of action.
COMPETENCE OF PERSON:
18. Present suit is filed by plaintiff Sanjay Jain and it is stated in the plaint that plaintiff is the sole proprietor of M/s Vardhman Chemicals
19. Further during the cross examination it has been admitted by the defendant that he has been dealing with Sanjay Jain. Relevant extract from the cross examination is reproduced as under: "I have been dealing with Mr. Sanjay Jain on behalf of M/s Vardhman Chemicals. (vol) Sh. Sanjay Jain had been coming to our factory bhiwadi as manager of M/s Vardhman Chemicals."
Suit No. 415/14 Sanjay Jain Vs. M/S Gemini Polycoats Pvt. Ltd. 12
20. Defendant has placed on record no such document to show that plaintiff is not proprietor of M/s Vardhman Chemicals. Further it is admitted by the defendant that he was dealing with the plaintiff on behalf of M/s Vardhman Chemicals. As such defendant has failed to show that plaintiff is not proprietor of M/s Vardhman Chemicals and is not authorized to file suit on behalf of M/s Vardhman Chemicals.
In view of the facts and law discussed above present issue is decided against the defendant and in favour of plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 2 21 . Burden to prove present issue lies upon the plaintiff. It is case of plaintiff that defendants purchased material from the plaintiff vide invoices bearing invoice no. R689 dated 26.08.2010 for a sum of Rs. 72,826/ and invoice no. R707 dated 01.11.2010 for a sum of Rs. 81,546/ and they made payments to the plaintiff to tune of Rs. 35,220/ as per the statement of account maintained by the plaintiff in ordinary course of business. It is further stated that defendants also not furnished the complainant "C" Forms for the goods supplied to them vide the aforesaid Bills and as such a sum of Rs. 10,833/ is also against the defendants on account of Sales Tax.
Suit No. 415/14 Sanjay Jain Vs. M/S Gemini Polycoats Pvt. Ltd. 13
22. In reply thereof it is submitted by the defendants that against two invoices of Rs. 72,826/ and Rs. 81,526/ part payment of Rs. 1,10,000/ was made by the defendants i.e. payment of Rs. 60,000/ on 12.10.2010 and of Rs. 50,000/ on 28.02.2011 and with regard to remaining amount there was dispute as material was not supplied according to specifications. It is further submitted that one of the material i.e. "Scarlet Chrome" worth Rs. 40,000/ was not according to specifications and same was returned to representatives of plaintiff company but no credit note was send by them. It was further averred that one material namely "Alfa Blue" in second invoive dated 01.11.2010 was charged at Rs. 6000/ per kg. instead of Rs. 540/ per Kg.
23.In order to prove his case plaintiff has place on record original carbon copy of both the invoices i.e. R689 and R707. Defendant in his pleadings has not denied the fact receiving of goods against these invoices. As such burden shifts upon the defendant to prove that he has made payment against these invoices and has returned the goods to tune of Rs. 40,000/ to the plaintiff.
24. In order to prove that defendant has made payment of Rs. 1,10,000/ to the plaintiff against the abovesaid invoices defendant has placed on record computer generated statement of accounts for period 01.02.2010 to 17.01.2011 and from 01.02.2011 to 31.03.2011. It would be gainful in here to state the observations Suit No. 415/14 Sanjay Jain Vs. M/S Gemini Polycoats Pvt. Ltd. 14 made by Hon'ble Apex court in Ishwar Das Jain v. Sohan Lal, AIR 2000 SC 426, with regards to extracts of accounts book: "It will be noticed that sanctity is attached in the law of evidence to books of account if the books are indeed "account books i.e. in original and if they show, on their face, that they are kept in the "regular course of business", Such sanctity, in our opinion, cannot attach to private extracts of alleged account books where the original accounts are not filed into Court. This is because, from the extracts, it cannot be discovered whether the accounts are kept in the regular course of business or if there are any interpolations or whether the interpolations are in a different ink or whether the accounts are in the form of a book with continuous page numbering. Hence, if the original books have not been produced, it is not possible to know whether the entries relating to payment of rent are entries made in the regular course of business."
25. It is furthermore pertinent to state in here that defendant has filed computer generated statement of accounts, however he failed to file mandatory certificate under sec. 65 B of Indian Evidence Act and as as such such document is not admissible in evidence. It would be gainful to state in here observation made by v.
Hon'ble Apex court Anvar P.V P.K Basheer and others 2014 SCC online SC 732 Suit No. 415/14 Sanjay Jain Vs. M/S Gemini Polycoats Pvt. Ltd. 15
"5.......Any documentary evidence by way of an electronic record under the Evidence Act, in view of Sections 59 and 65A, can be proved only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 65B. Section 65B deals with the admissibility of the electronic record. The purpose of these provisions is to sanctify secondary evidence in electronic form, generated by a computer. It may be noted that the Section starts with a non obstante clause. Thus, notwithstanding anything contained in the Evidence Act, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer shall be deemed to be a document only if the conditions mentioned under subSection (2) are satisfied, without further proof or production of the original. The very admissibility of such a document, i.e, electronic record which is called as computer output, depends on the satisfaction of the four conditions under Section 65B(2). Following are the specified conditions under Section 65B(2) of the Evidence Act:
(i) The electronic record containing the information should have been produced by the computer during the period over which the same was regularly used to store or process information for the purpose of any activity regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of that computer;
(ii) The information of the kind contained in electronic record or of the kind from which the information is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activity;
Suit No. 415/14 Sanjay Jain Vs. M/S Gemini Polycoats Pvt. Ltd. 16
(iii) During the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly and that even if it was not operating properly for some time, the break or breaks had not affected either the record or the accuracy of its contents; and
(iv)The information contained in the record should be a reproduction or derivation from the information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activity.
Under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, if it is desired to give a statement in any proceedings pertaining to an electronic record, it is permissible provided the following conditions are satisfied:
(a) There must be a certificate which identifies the electronic record containing the statement;
(b) The certificate must describe the manner in which the electronic record was produced;
(c) The certificate must furnish the particulars of the device involved in the production of that record;
(d) The certificate must deal with the applicable conditions mentioned under Section 65B(2) of the Evidence Act; and
(e) The certificate must be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device.
Suit No. 415/14 Sanjay Jain Vs. M/S Gemini Polycoats Pvt. Ltd. 17
6. It is further clarified that the person need only to state in the certificate that the same is to the best of his knowledge and belief. Most importantly, such a certificate must accompany the electronic record like computer printout, Compact Disc (CD), Video Compact Disc (VCD), pen drive, etc., pertaining to which a statement is sought to be given in evidence, when the same is produced in evidence. All these safeguards are taken to ensure the source and authenticity, which are the two hallmarks pertaining to electronic record sought to be used as evidence. Electronic records being more susceptible to tampering, alteration, transposition, excision, etc. without such safeguards, the whole trial based on proof of electronic records can lead to travesty of justice.
7. Only if the electronic record is duly produced in terms of Section 65B of the Evidence Act, the question would arise as to the genuineness thereof and in that situation, resort can be made to Section 45A opinion of examiner of electronic evidence. The Evidence Act does not contemplate or permit the proof of an electronic record by oral evidence if requirements under Section 65B of the Evidence Act are not complied with, as the law now stands in India."
26. It is further stated by the defendant that he has returned goods of Rs. 40,000/ to the plaintiff. As such burden to prove the same lies upon the defendant. Defendant has not place on record any document or evidence to show that such goods were returned by him to the plaintiff.
Suit No. 415/14 Sanjay Jain Vs. M/S Gemini Polycoats Pvt. Ltd. 18
27. Further, it is admitted by the defendant that he has never issued any debit note to M/s Vardhman Chemicals neither has issued any letter or notice to the defendant for replacing of goods. It would be relevant in here to reproduce in here relevant extract of the cross examination: "......I have not written any letter or correspondence to the plaintiff with regard to defenctive material worth Rs. 40,000/. (vol.) Sh. Sanjay jain used to come to my factory at Bhiwadi and have taken the defendant material worth Rs. 40,000/. It is correct that I have not mentioned in my affidavit Ex. DW1/A that Sh. Sanjay Jain has come to Bhiwadi and has taken defective material with him. (vol) In affidavit Ex. DW1/A. In para 3 I have mentioned that the aforesaid materials was return to the representatives of M/s Vardhman Chemicals. It is correct that our company has not sent any debit note of alleged Rs. 40,000/ to the plaintiff. (vol) Sh Sanjay Jain promise to replace the defective materials. It is correct that that I have not taken any receipt for goods return to Sh. Sanjay Jain. The goods were taken in the year 2010 and were returned in the year 2011. It is correct that I have not issued any communication/ letter to the plaintiff for not fulfilling his promise his promise to replace the defective materials. It is correct that I have not issued any legal notice for the last about three years to the plaintiff. It is correct that I have not issued any legal notice for the last about three years to the plaintiff."
28. It was further stated that one material namely "Alfa Blue" in second invoice dated 01.11.2010 was charged at Rs. 600/ per kg. instead of Rs. 540/ per Kg. Suit No. 415/14 Sanjay Jain Vs. M/S Gemini Polycoats Pvt. Ltd. 19 This fact is admitted by the plaintiff during the course of his cross examination. Relevant part of the cross examination is reproduced as under
" ....It is correct that the Rate of material Alpha Blue in Ex. PW1/1 is Rs. 540/ per kg. It is correct that the Rate of material Alpha Blue in Ex. PW1/2 is Rs. 600/ per kg. It is wrong to suggest that I have raised invoice of material Alpha Blue on different Rates in both the invoices without any reason. Vol. The rate of material Alpha Blue was revised. It is correct that no written communication of revise rate of material Alpha Blue was given by M/s Vardhman Chemicals to the defendant company. Vol. It was told orally......"
29. However, once goods are delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant, it was incumbent upon the defendant to show that he has not accepted the goods on the revised rates and he has lodged his protest against the rates charged by the plaintiff in the subsequent Invoice. No such letter/ document is filed by the defendant to show that he has not accepted the goods send by the plaintiff on the revised rates and he has lodged protest against the same.
30. It is further stated by the plaintiff that defendants also not furnished the "C" Forms for the goods supplied to them vide the aforesaid Bills and as such a sum of Rs. 10,833/ is also due against the defendants on account of Sales Tax. Burden to prove present contention lies upon the plaintiff however defendant during the course of cross examination has admitted that he has not issue C form Suit No. 415/14 Sanjay Jain Vs. M/S Gemini Polycoats Pvt. Ltd. 20 to the plaintiff. relevant extract of cross examination of the defendant is reproduced as under: " It is correct that I had not supplied the C forms for the purchase made by my company to the plaintiff. (vol) Since there was some dispute I have not issued C forms"
31. In view of the same as defendant has admitted receiving of goods against above said invoices and has failed to prove that he has made payment towards the invoice in dispute (as the statement of accounts filed by the defendant is not admissible in evidence) and that he has returned goods worth Rs. 40000/ to the plaintiff and that he has not accepted the goods at revised rates and this fact is communicated by him to the plaintiff. Plaintiff in his plaint has admitted that he has received a sum of Rs. 35,220/ from the defendant.
32. In view of the above made observations plainitff is entitle to recover a sum of Rs. 1,08,439(72,826+60,000+10,833)35,220) from the defendant. Plaintiff has also sought interest @ 15% per annum from the date when the said sum become due till the recovery of same. In the present circumstances of the case, this court is of view that interest @ 15% per annum is exorbitant and interest @ 12% per annum will serve the interest of justice.
Suit No. 415/14 Sanjay Jain Vs. M/S Gemini Polycoats Pvt. Ltd. 21 RELIEF:
In view of the observations made above suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed.
Plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 1,08,439/ along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date when the said sum become due till the recovery of same.
Considering the present circumstances of the case there is no order as to cost.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Pronounced in open court on 06.02.2015.
( Anubhav Jain ) Civil Judge05, Central District Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Present judgment is consist of 21 pages and each page is signed by me.
Suit No. 415/14 Sanjay Jain Vs. M/S Gemini Polycoats Pvt. Ltd.