Delhi District Court
M/S Amrit Seair Express Pvt. Ltd vs M/S Astral International on 30 October, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. SONU AGNIHOTRI,
ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM- JUDGE SMALL CAUSE
COURT-CUM- GUARDIAN JUDGE,
DISTRICT: SOUTH, NEW DELHI.
CS No. 66/13
Unique ID No. 02406C0042822013
M/S AMRIT seAIR EXPRESS PVT. LTD.
Regd. Office:
221, Sant Nagar, East Of Kailash,
New Delhi-110005. .................. Plaintiff.
Vs.
1.M/S ASTRAL INTERNATIONAL C-140, Sector-63, NOIDA-201301, Disstt. Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.
2. SHRI RAJEEV PANDEY Prop. M/s. Astral International, C-140, Sector-63, NOIDA-201301, Disstt. Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.
Also At:
502, Tarika Housing Coop. Society, Sector-43, Gurgaon, Haryana. ..............Defendants.
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 15.02.2013
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 03.10.2013
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.10.2013
CS No. 66/13 Page No. 1 of 7
EX-PARTE JUDGMENT
30.10.2013
Vide this Ex-parte judgment, I shall dispose of suit filed by plaintiff against defendants for recovery of Rs.1,22,151/-.
Relevant facts necessary for disposal of the present suit are as follows:-
1. In the suit, it is stated that plaintiff is a Private Limited Company incorporated under Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 221, Sant Nagar, East of Kailash, New Delhi and Airport Office (Branch) at Amrit Complex, Khasra No. 10/2, Village Samalkha, New Delhi.
2. It is stated that plaintiff is running business of international freight forwarding, multimodal transportation, Custom Clearing Agent and Cargo Consolidators and is a recognized IATA Agent.
3. It is stated that Mr. Ravinder Kumar Sharma, Accounts Manager has been duly authorized as Authorized Representative of plaintiff company vide resolution dated 16.01.2013 having authority to sign, verify and institute present suit.CS No. 66/13 Page No. 2 of 7
4. It is stated that defendant no. 1 through its sole proprietor Mr. Ramesh Pandey had been dealing with plaintiff company and availed services of plaintiff for export of its consignments through air against bills raised by plaintiff. It is stated that services provided by plaintiff were to the satisfaction of defendant concern. It is stated that Mr. Ramesh Pandey expired in 2012 and his son i.e. defendant no. 2 Mr. Rajeev Pandey became proprietor of defendant no. 1. It is stated that defendant no. 2 was earlier also looking after, managing, supervising and acting as authorized signatory of defendant no. 1 concern alongwith his father Mr. Ramesh Pandey and mother Mrs. Pushpa Pandey.
5. It is stated that plaintiff has been maintaining regular running account in name of defendant no. 1 in its books of account in ordinary course of business with regard to services availed by defendants. It is stated that as per statement of accounts of defendant no. 1, sum of Rs.71,021/- is due against outstanding bills as on 25.02.2010 from defendants to plaintiff.
6. It is stated that as per books of account maintained by plaintiff, defendant no. 1 had availed services against Bill No. 1631, AWB No. 781-6220-0272 dated 21.01.2010 from Delhi to Los Angeles for Rs.68,641/- and against Bill No. 1859, AWB No. CS No. 66/13 Page No. 3 of 7 695-3001-0186 dated 17.02.2010 from Delhi to Los Angeles for Rs.71,021/-.
7. It is stated that defendant no. 1 made payment with regard to Bill No. 1631 to the tune of Rs.68,641/- vide cheque dated 22.02.2010. It is stated that defendant no. 1 for making payment towards Bill No. 1859 issued Cheque bearing No. 238295 dated 25.02.2010 drawn on Karnataka Bank in favour of plaintiff. It is stated that however this cheque when presented by plaintiff was returned dishonoured by banker of defendant no.
1. It is stated that this cheque was issued by authorized signatory of defendant no. 1 namely Mrs. Pushpa Pandey i.e. mother of defendant no. 2.
8. It is stated that plaintiff served legal notice dated 23.01.2013 upon defendants through speed post and courier but despite service of legal notice through courier, no amount has been paid by defendants to plaintiff till date. It is stated that amount of Rs.51,130/- is due towards defendants for interest liability of defendants upon principal sum of Rs.71,021/- w.e.f. 17.02.2010 to 15.02.2013.
9. Plaintiff has prayed for passing decree for a sum of Rs.
1,22,151/- alongwith pendente-lite and future interest @24% per CS No. 66/13 Page No. 4 of 7 annum till realization in favour of plaintiff and against defendants alongwith costs.
10. Defendants chose not to appear even after service of summons to them by way of refusal by way of speed post. Defendants were therefore proceeded ex-parte on 30.05.2013.
11. I have heard arguments addressed by counsel for plaintiff and perused the record.
12. Plaintiff in ex-parte evidence examined Sh. Ravinder Kumar Sharma as PW-1. PW-1 has relied upon his affidavit in evidence vide Ex. P-1, certified true copy of Board Resolution dated 16.01.2013 in his favour vide Ex. PW-1/1, computer generated ledger account of defendant no. 1 vide Ex. PW-1/2, original bills bearing no. 1631 and 1859 vide Ex. PW-1/3 and Ex. PW-1/4 respectively, Agent copies of air way bills vide Ex. PW-1/5 and Ex. PW-1/6, photocopy of cheque bearing no. 238295 dated 25.02.2010 for sum of Rs.71,021/- purportedly signed by mother of defendant no. 2 vide Ex. PW-1/7 (the cheque was allowed to be proved by way of secondary evidence vide Order dated 05.09.2013), copy of legal notice dated 23.01.2013 vide Ex. PW-1/7A, speed post receipts vide which Ex. PW-1/7A was sent to defendants vide Ex. PW-1/7B (Colly), CS No. 66/13 Page No. 5 of 7 courier receipts vide which Ex. PW-1/7A was purportedly sent to defendants vide Ex. PW-1/8 (Colly), undelivered speed post envelops vide which Ex. PW-1/7A was sent to defendant no. 2 vide Ex. PW-1/9 (Colly), undelivered courier envelop vide Ex. PW-1/10 and delivery report of DTDC Courier vide Ex. PW-1/11.
13. PW-1 has authority to depose before Court on behalf of plaintiff company stands proved in view of certified copy of board resolution dated 16.01.2013 (Ex. PW-1/1) remaining unrebutted. The factum of amount of Rs.71,021/- due towards defendants stands proved in view of Ex. PW-1/2 and Ex. PW-1/4 remaining unrebutted. The cheque for due amount purportedly issued by mother of defendant no. 2 for defendant no. 1 stands proved on account of Ex. PW-1/7 remaining unrebutted. Averments of PW-1 that Ex. PW-1/7 returned dishonoured stands proved in view of testimony of PW-1 in this regard remaining unchallenged. The fact that defendant no. 2 has become sole proprietor of defendant no. 1 stands proved on account of testimony of PW-1 remaining unchallenged in this regard.
14. In view of my discussion in last para, I am of the opinion that plaintiff has been able to prove his case against defendants beyond preponderance of probabilities and suit of plaintiff is CS No. 66/13 Page No. 6 of 7 liable to be decreed. Accordingly suit of plaintiff is decreed for sum of Rs.1,22,151/- (including interest till 15.02.2013). Interest as mentioned on bills raised against defendant no. 1 is 24% per annum on bill not paid. I am of the view that though transaction in question is commercial in nature but interest @24% per annum would be on higher side. Accordingly, interest @12% per annum is granted on principal sum of Rs.71,021/- from date of filing of present suit till realization. Costs of suit are awarded in favour of plaintiff and against defendants.
Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court on 30.10.2013 Sonu Agnihotri JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi.
CS No. 66/13 Page No. 7 of 7