Delhi District Court
M/S Bindal Smelting Pvt. Ltd vs M/S Aegan Batteries Limited on 19 February, 2015
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE
II (CENTRAL):TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS No.51/14
Unique Case ID No.: 02401C0151372014
M/s Bindal Smelting Pvt. Ltd.
987, 1st Floor, Hardhian Singh Road,
Naiwala, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi 110005.
...... Plaintiff
VERSUS
M/s Aegan Batteries Limited
C/O 26/1, 27/3,
Chudugundhanahalli
Malur Taluk563160
Karnataka
......Defendant
Date of Institution: 1.4.2014
Arguments heard on: 19.2.2015
Date of Decision: 19.2.2015
JUDGMENT (Oral):
This suit has been filed by the Plaintiff M/s. Bindal Smelting Pvt. Ltd. for recovery of Rs.9,10,864/ (Rupees Nine Lacs Ten Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty Four Only) along with pendentelite and future interest @ 18% per annum against the defendant M/s. Aegan Batteries Limited.
M/s. Bindal Smelting Vs. M/s. Aegan Batteries, CS No. 51/14 Page No. 1 Case of the plaintiff:
The case of the plaintiff is that it is a Registered Private Limited Company and Shri Sunil Kumar Gupta, the Authorized Representative of the Company has been duly authorized by the resolution dated 10.03.2014 passed by the Board of Directors of the plaintiff company, to sign, verify and institute the present suit, on behalf of the plaintiff company, to swear the affidavits, to make statements, engage advocates and undertake and discharge all necessary acts and take all steps pertaining to the present suit and do all the needful in respect of the suit. It is pleaded that the plaintiff company is engaged in business of manufacturer, supplier and exporter of Lead Alloy, Lead Oxide, Red Lead & Litharge named as M/s Bindal Smelting Private Ltd having its registered office at 987, 1st Floor, Hardhian Singh Road, Naiwala, Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110005.
It is further pleaded that the defendant are the old business associates and defendant have been placing orders on plaintiff from time to time and in executing thereof, plaintiff has been supplying the goods ordered by defendant and has been executing orders form time to time according to defendant demand. It is also pleaded that the defendant has been purchasing goods from plaintiff and the payment in respect of the goods purchased by defendant has also been made from time to time. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff has been maintaining a current and running account relating to the transactions which they had with defendant and the payments made by defendant in respect of the goods supplied to defendant M/s. Bindal Smelting Vs. M/s. Aegan Batteries, CS No. 51/14 Page No. 2 were credited to the account of defendant with plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, during the course of business the plaintiff had given the delivery of various goods such as refined lead and lead Ingots as manufactured by it according to the need and requirement of the defendant vide invoice no. 102 dated 25.09.2013 amounting to Rs.39,10,864/.
According to the plaintiff, the defendant delayed the payment but on persistent demands, when the plaintiff reminded the defendant of his promise, where upon and in due discharge of their liabilities made part payment of Rs.30,00,000/ in part and finally issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/ bearing No. 383969 dated 5.11.2013 drawn on State Bank of India, Bangalore. It is also pleaded that at the time of issuance of said cheque, the defendant represented and assured the plaintiff that the cheque would be duly encashed by their banker on presentation and on the basis of such assurances and representation the plaintiff accepted the said cheque. According to the plaintiff, they are having their account in HDFC Bank, Karol Bagh Branch, New Delhi and when the plaintiff presented the said cheque in their account for encashment through his aforesaid bank, the banker did not honour the said cheuqe and returned the same with slip having remarks "STOP PAYMENT". It is pleaded that immediately on receipt of the said dishonoured cheque the plaintiff approached the defendant and informed them about the same after which the defendant apologized and issued another cheque amounting to Rs.8,00,000/ bearing No. 383970 dated 18.11.2013 drawn on State Bank of India, Bangalore and M/s. Bindal Smelting Vs. M/s. Aegan Batteries, CS No. 51/14 Page No. 3 again assured the plaintiff that he would made the remaining payment. However, when the plaintiff presented the said cheque in their account for encashment through his bank on 25.01.2014, the banker did not honour the said cheque and did not make the payment and returned the same vide their return slip with remarks "STOP PAYMENT". Thereafter the plaintiff approached the defendant and informed them about the same but the defendant started avoiding the plaintiff on one pretext or the other.
It is further pleaded that when the respondent first issued the cheque amounting to Rs.10,00,000/ to the plaintiff on 05.11.2013 defendant were having malafide intention and defendant requested and insisted the plaintiff to present the another cheque of Rs.8,00,000/ dated 18.11.2013 again, it was in the knowledge of the defendant that the cheque was going to be dishonoured as there was insufficient funds in their account that is why the defendant were not having clean intention to make the payment of the said cheque to plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, they immediately contacted the defendant on telephone and apprised him regarding the fate of the cheques and made the demands of the payment of the dishonoured cheque from the defendant, on which the defendant assured the plaintiff that he would make the payment within two to three days, but not even a single penny was paid by the defendant despite repeated request and reminders made by the plaintiff company and the defendant always made lame excuses and avoiding the issue on the one pretext or other. It is further pleaded that even thereafter on many occasions the plaintiff had M/s. Bindal Smelting Vs. M/s. Aegan Batteries, CS No. 51/14 Page No. 4 raised the demand of the said amount from the defendant company by way of personal visit as well as by telephone calls but the defendant never paid any heed or attention towards the request of the plaintiff and never made any payment towards the said liability.
It is also pleaded that the plaintiff company ultimately sent a legal notice dated 10.02.2014 through their counsel, asking the defendants to pay the said amount of Rs.9,10,864/ (Rs Nine Lakh Ten Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty four Only) along with the interest @ 18% per annum alongwith interest thereon @18% from till date within 15 days from the receipt of the said notice, but despite the due service of the said notice, the defendants never cared to send any reply to the notice or contacted the plaintiff company or otherwise took any steps for making payment of the remaining amount or a part thereof. According to the plaintiff they are entitled to recover an amount of Rs.9,10,864/ (Rs. Nine Lacs Ten Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty four Only) along with the interest @18% per annum plus the interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of notice till the date or institution of the present suit alongwith the pendentelite and future interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of institution of suit till the conclusion of the suit and till the realization of the decreetal amount.
It is pleaded that the cause of action arose in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant on 25.09.2013, when the plaintiff company had given the delivery according to the purchase orders; again on 05.11.2013 and thereafter on 18.11.2013 when the plaintiff company reminded the M/s. Bindal Smelting Vs. M/s. Aegan Batteries, CS No. 51/14 Page No. 5 defendant company regarding the payment of their dues and accordingly defendant issued two cheques in order to discharge his liabilities; again on 24.01.2014 when the cheques issued by the defendant company got dishonoured; again on 27.01.2014 when the plaintiff company received the intimation regarding the dishonour of cheques by their bankers; again on 10.02.2014 when the plaintiff company served a legal notice upon the defendants which cause of action still subsisting as no payment has been made by the defendant which is due towards the plaintiff company.
Pursuant to the filing of the suit the defendant has been duly served through registered post despite which none had appeared for the defendant and vide order dated 6.6.2014 the defendant was proceeded exparte by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court.
In its exparte evidence the plaintiff has examined Manmohan Kumar as PW1 and in his examination in chief by way of affidavit he has corroborated what has been earlier stated in the main plaint. He has placed his reliance on the copy of Board Resolution which is Ex.PW1/1; Invoice No. 102 dated 25.9.2013 amounting to Rs.39,10,864/ which is Ex.PW1/2; cheque No. 383969 dated 5.11.2013 drawn on State Bank of India, Bangalore Branch amounting to Rs.10,00,000/ which is Ex.PW1/3; original cheque slip of the banker with remarks "STOP PAYMENT"
which is Ex.PW1/4; Cheque No. 383970 dated 18.11.2013 drawn on State Bank of India, Bangalore Branch amounting to Rs.8,00,000/ which is M/s. Bindal Smelting Vs. M/s. Aegan Batteries, CS No. 51/14 Page No. 6 Ex.PW1/5; original returned slip of the banker with the remarks of SOP PAYMENT which is Ex.PW1/6; legal notice dated 10.2.2014 which is Ex.PW1/7; postal slip which is Ex.PW1/8; Acknowledgment Card which is Ex.PW1/9 and Minutes books of plaintiff company which is Ex.PW1/10.
I have duly perused the above documents which have been proved in accordance with law. I have also gone through the memorandum of arguments filed on behalf of the plaintiff. I am satisfied that the suit is within the period of limitation and this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to try the same. The entire evidence of the plaintiff has gone un controverted and unrebutted in view of the fact that the defendant was ex parte and has not appeared to controvert the grounds raised by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has duly proved the invoice Ex/PW1/2 showing that as on 25.9.2013 the outstanding dues upon the defendant were Rs.39,10,864/ out of which the plaintiff admits that Rs.30,00,000/ was paid (as per the pleadings) and the remaining amount which then remain is Rs.9,10,864/. The plaintiff has further proved that in order to discharge the liability qua the remaining amount of Rs.9,10,864/ the defendant initially issued cheque dated 5.11.2013 for Rs.10,00,000/ (Ex.PW1/3) which when presented was not honoured due to Stop Payment. Plaintiff has further proved that thereafter when the plaintiff informed the defendant of the same, the defendant again issued another cheque dated 18.11.2013 for a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/ (Ex.PW1/5) which again when presented was not honoured on M/s. Bindal Smelting Vs. M/s. Aegan Batteries, CS No. 51/14 Page No. 7 account of Stop Payment. Hence, under the given circumstances the remaining liability of the defendant to pay the outstanding dues of Rs. 9,10,864/ continued on account of which the present suit was filed and the entire evidence lead by the plaintiff has not been rebutted. I am satisfied that the plaintiff has shown the outstanding liability upon the defendant to Rs.9,10,864/ and the suit has been filed within the limitation. I am further satisfied that there was a failure of the defendant to pay the outstanding amount even after a valid service of the legal notice of demand them to pay the outstanding amount thereby entitling the plaintiff to claim the amount of legally recoverable dues i.e. outstanding amount of Rs.9,10,864/ (Rupees Nine Lacs, Ten Thousand, Eight Hundred Sixty Four only). In so far as the aspect of rate of interest is concerned, though the plaintiff is claiming the interest @ 18% per annum, however, in my considered view the interest of justice would be served if an interest at the rate of 6% per annum be given on the principal amount.
FINAL CONCLUSIONS:
In view of my above findings, I hereby hold that the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.9,10,864/ (Rupees Nine Lacs, Ten Thousand, Eight Hundred Sixty Four only) with 6% interest per annum from the date of institution of suit till the date of decree alongwith cost of M/s. Bindal Smelting Vs. M/s. Aegan Batteries, CS No. 51/14 Page No. 8 the suit. The suit of plaintiff is hereby decreed. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 19.2.2015 ADJII(CENTRAL)/ DELHI M/s. Bindal Smelting Vs. M/s. Aegan Batteries, CS No. 51/14 Page No. 9 M/s. Bindal Smelting Vs. M/s. Aegan Batteries CS No. 51/2014 19.2.2015
Present: Sh. Mohd. Furkan Advocate for the plaintiff.
Defendant is exparte.
Written memorandum of arguments filed. Heard oral arguments. Be listed for orders at 4:00 PM.
(Dr. Kamini Lau) ADJII(Central)/ 19.2.2015 4:00 PM Present: Sh. Mohd. Furkan Advocate for the plaintiff.
Defendant is exparte.
Vide my separate detail order dictated and announced in the open court, but not typed, I hold that the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.9,10,864/ (Rupees Nine Lacs, Ten Thousand, Eight Hundred Sixty Four only) with 6% interest per annum from the date of institution of suit till the date of decree alongwith cost of the suit. The suit of plaintiff is hereby decreed. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Dr. Kamini Lau) ADJII(Central)/ 19.2.2015 M/s. Bindal Smelting Vs. M/s. Aegan Batteries, CS No. 51/14 Page No. 10