Bangalore District Court
M/S Rinac India Limited vs Sri Sinidhi Samrudhi Cold Storage Pvt ... on 10 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF LXXXIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU. (CCH-90)
Present: Sri.K.M.RAJENDRA KUMAR., LLM, M.Phil,
LXXXIX Addl.City Civil &
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF JANUARY 2025
Com.O.S.No.1480/2022
PLAINTIFF : M/s.RINAC India Limited,
Having its Registered Office at:
No.5, Saraswathi Nivas,
Main Channel Road, Ulsoor,
Bengaluru-560 008,
Represented by its
Company Secretary,
Sri Manikandan Rajalingam,
S/o Rajalingam Vaiyapuri,
Aged about 36 Years,
E-Mail ID:[email protected]
(For Sri.B.S.Jeevan Kumar,
Advocate)
V/s.
DEFENDANTS : 01. Sri Sinidhi Samrudhi Cold
Storage Private Limited,
Private Limited Company
registered under the
provisions of Companies Act,
1956,
Having its registered office at
No.2358, 10th Main,
4th Cross, 2nd Stage,
/2/
Com.O.S.No.1480/2022
Vijayanagar, Mysore-570 017,
Represented by its Directors,
02. Singaraiah Javaraiah,
Aged Major,
Director,
03. Narasimhamurthy
Sindhaghatha Javaraiah,
Aged Major,
Director.
Defendant No.2 and 3 are
Directors of the first defendant
Having its Office at No.2358,
10th Main, 4th Cross, 2nd Stage,
Vijayanagar, Mysore-570 017.
(By Sri.Nagesha Poojari.Y,
Advocate)
Date of Institution of suit : 11.10.2022
Nature of suit : Money Suit
(suit on pronote, suit for
declaration and
possession suit for
injunction, etc.,)
Date of commencement : 12.04.2023
of recording of evidence
Date of judgment : 10.01.2025
Total duration : Year/s Month/s Day/s
02 02 29
(K.M.RAJENDRA KUMAR)
LXXXIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU. (CCH-90)
/3/
Com.O.S.No.1480/2022
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants No.1 to 3 praying the Court to pass a judgment and decree directing the defendants No.1 to 3 to pay jointly and severally a sum of ₹.32,90,101/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lakhs Ninety Thousand One Hundred and One Only) along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of suit till its realization, for costs and such other reliefs in the interest of justice and equity.
The brief facts of the plaintiff's case are as under:
02. That, the plaintiff is a reputed manufacturers of walk-in-chillers and walk-in-freezers providing energy efficient and best refrigeration and are also pioneers in modular cold rooms and well known for several innovations and the company is first in the industry from pre-coolers to ripening chambers.
03. That, the first defendant is a non-Govt. Company and second and third defendants are its Directors.
04. That, the defendants had placed purchase orders from the plaintiff for prefabricated construction /4/ Com.O.S.No.1480/2022 refrigeration systems for cold room, freezer room and insulation panels for wall, doors. Since all the terms and conditions including quality were accepted, total invoice of ₹.2,63,91,190/- was raised. That, out of that, ₹.2,41,60,001/- has been paid on various dates and the remaining outstanding amount is ₹.26,11,191/- is due as on 17.06.2020.
05. That, meanwhile a cheque for ₹.6,00,000/- came to be issued by the defendants and the plaintiff has deposited the cheque which came to be returned with shara "Funds Insufficient' and on the request of the defendants, the proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act were not initiated to maintain the cordial relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant.
06. That, without there being any other options, the plaintiff has issued legal notice dated 07.12.2021 which came to be served on the defendants. That, the defendants vide reply notice dated 04.01.2022 though admitted the transactions, took unethical plea stating that they are not due any amount payable to the plaintiff.
/5/ Com.O.S.No.1480/2022
07. That, even though the reasonable time has been given for their outstanding payment, the payment is yet to be made. That, the plaintiff in compliance with Section 12(A) of Commercial Courts Act, filed PIM 90/2022 before the District Legal Service Authority, Bengaluru Urban on 14.01.2022. But the defendants failed to appear before the DLSA and the DLSA has issued Non-Starter Report on 13.04.2022.
08. It is further contended that, the defendants after obtaining the services of the plaintiff cannot withhold the legitimate amount belonging to the plaintiff. That, the defendants are liable to pay an interest @ 12% p.a. on the outstanding amount of ₹.26,11,191/- from the last date of payment i.e., 17.06.2020. The calculation is as under:
Outstanding amount ₹.26,11,191/-
Interest @ 12% p.a. from ₹.6.78.910/-
17.06.2020 for a period of 26
months
Total ₹.32,90,101/-
09. That, same being commercial transactions, the plaintiff is also entitled for the interest in the delayed /6/ Com.O.S.No.1480/2022 payment @ 12% p.a. from the date of suit till its realization. By contending so, the plaintiff prays to decree the suit.
10. Upon service of summons, the defendants have appeared through their counsel and filed written statement by denying the entire case of the plaintiff.
11. In the written statement the defendants contended that the commercial suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts and hence the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants is liable to be dismissed in limine.
12. That, the said suit is frivolous, vexatious and highly belated and is wholly misconceived and hence the same is liable to be dismissed. That, the various allegations /averments made in the plaint are totally false and incorrect.
13. That, the suit is barred by time. That, the plaintiff has produced the ledger statement and also certificate under Sec.65(B) of Indian Evidence Act are not an electronic record and the same is not admissible as an /7/ Com.O.S.No.1480/2022 electronic record for the reason that the said document was not a document which has come to the plaintiff from the defendant or anybody else through electronic mode. That, the statement produced by the plaintiff is only a statement prepared by the plaintiff in his computer instead of accounts books. That, therefore, such a statement is not admissible in evidence as electronic record. That, the statement filed by the plaintiff is prepared by the plaintiff to suit its convenience hence specifically denied and the same is not binding on the defendants.
14. That, the Defendants had placed purchase orders from the Plaintiff for pre-fabricated construction refrigeration systems for cold room, freezer room and insulation panels for walls, doors are all matter on record. That terms and conditions including quality were accepted by the Defendants to the total invoice amount of ₹.2,63,91,190-00 and remitted ₹.2,41,60,001-00 with balance sum of ₹.26,11,191-00 as on 17-06-2020 are all incorrect and the Plaintiff is to put strict proof.
15. That, the sales representative of Plaintiff Company' sales approached and told about their company /8/ Com.O.S.No.1480/2022 and its products and at the time of negotiation it was promised and assured that there will be no problem as the plaintiff will take 100% care of 3 year of free services from the date of delivery of equipment and also told thier equipment's are best in qualities. Accordingly, on assurance of the Plaintiff, the Defendant-Company agreed to buy equipment. But the Plaintiff Company did not do so, instead of they have taken away back three generators from the custody of Defendants with promise that the same will be serviced and returned back but not returned even after several requests from the defendants. It caused huge problem and business/revenue loss to the Defendants. In fact, false assurance were made to Defendants and induced the Defendants to buy the equipment from the Plaintiff. However, the Defendants had transacted with the Plaintiffs which runs into Crores of rupees worth and the Defendants have paid huge amounts to Plaintiff, but the Defendants instructed to state that some of the machines supplied by the plaintiff, like Fruit Ripening System which failed to work and 20 metric ton of Banana failed to ripen under the supervision of Plaintiff's staff during October 2018 and the Defendants suffered loss of ₹.3,15,000-00 per month and Defendants suffered bad reputation in the /9/ Com.O.S.No.1480/2022 business circle on account of defects in the working of the machines supplied by Plaintiff. The Defendants appraised Plaintiff Company regarding the said matter and also, Ethylene Generators for ripening fruits stopped working and Plaintiff Company took back the said Generators promising to replace or rectify the said defects shown. In the said circumstances, the Defendants suffered huge loss in the said business, running loss to the extent of Rs.3,15,000-00 per month from December 2018 till date, amounting to Rs.1,13,40,000-0-00 on account of Plaintiff's failure to render proper services to its customer, hence the Plaintiff is liable to make good of the same to Defendants.
16. That the production of Invoice for a sum of Rs.2,63,91,190-00 on various dates as per Document No.2 and 3 are not correct and the Plaintiff is to put strict proof thereof. The Plaintiff has cooked up documents in order get the relief by this Court. In fact the Defendants have accepted the delivery of the machines and material supplied by the Plaintiff on the assurances made by them that the said machines and materials will work smoothly and efficiently and it meets required temperature of -22 degree but unfortunately some of the machine reached -9 /10/ Com.O.S.No.1480/2022 degree temperature instead of -22 as assured by plaintiff, apart from that a condenser was not working in view of the same lot of customer cancelled contract with defendant - company and in spite of repeated request also the plaintiff did not provide service as promised by them at the time of negotiation.
17. That a cheque of Rs.6,00,000-00 issued by the defendants, on its presentation, the same has returned dishonored with a reason Funds Insufficient is matter on record. Further the Defendants deny the other averments of the said Para that because of requests Defendants, the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were not initiated to maintain the cordial relationship between them. In fact the Plaintiffs have supplied the sub standard materials/Defective materials to the Defendants, especially when the Plaintiff had failed to either rectify or replace the above said defective machines, the Defendants have already explained the circumstances on which the Defendants have issued the said cheque, but on account of any other customer of Defendants presenting the said cheque, hurriedly the cheque issued to Plaintiff could not be honoured by the /11/ Com.O.S.No.1480/2022 Defendant's banker, however, the defendants have made a sum of Rs.2,00,000-00 to the plaintiff by NEFT to Plaintiff. Even the plaintiff did not provide free services as promised for the equipments and plaintiff charged for service/repair as against promises.
18. That, the Plaintiff caused a legal notice dated 07- 12-2021 to the defendants is a matter on record. However, the Defendants have sent suitable reply to the said notice.
19. That there is no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court as alleged by the Plaintiff in Plaint Para No.13 and 14 and the date shown by the Plaintiff is for its convenience and the plaintiff has not narrated true fact, as stated above suit is time barred. Payment dated 16.02.2019 of Rs 2,00,000/- and payment dated 17.06.2020 of Rs 30,000/ were not made towards outstanding due. The Plaintiff has not made out prima facie case against the defendant the allegations made in the plaint are all imaginary one except admitted ones.
20. The Plaintiff has not made the proper valuation of the plaint and he has not paid the proper court fee. The /12/ Com.O.S.No.1480/2022 Plaintiff is not entitled for any relief sought as claimed in the plaint. By contending so, the defendants prays to dismiss the suit with costs in the interest of justice and equity.
21. On the basis of the rival contentions, pleadings, material proposition of fact and law and the documents this Court has framed the following:
ISSUES
1. Whether the Plaintiff proves that the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.32,90,101/- to the plaintiff?
2. Whether the Plaintiff proves that the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay interest at 12% p.a. on Rs.26,11,191/- from the date of suit till the date of realisation of entire dues?
3. Whether the defendants prove that the suit is barred by limitation?
4. Whether the defendant prove that they have suffered loss on account of defect in the machinery supplied by the plaintiff and on account of defective service rendered by the plaintiff?
/13/ Com.O.S.No.1480/2022
5. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the suit reliefs?
6. What order/decree?
22. To substantiate the case of the plaintiff the Authorized Signatory of the plaintiff concern was examined as PW.1 and got marked the documents as per Ex.P1 to Ex P9.
23. On the other hand the defendants neither examined any witness nor produced any documents.
24. Heard arguments canvassed by the plaintiff alone. The defendants counsel did not argued the case on merits.
25. My answer to the above framed issues are as follows:
ISSUE No.1 : In the AFFIRMATIVE
ISSUE No.2 : Does not survive for consideration
ISSUE No.3 : In the NEGATIVE
ISSUE No.4 : In the NEGATIVE
ISSUE No.5 : In the AFFIRMATIVE
ISSUE No.6 : As per final Order
for the following
/14/
Com.O.S.No.1480/2022
REASONS
26. ISSUE No. 1 :It is pertinent here to mention that as I have already narrated the facts of the case in detail at the inception, I will not repeat the facts once gain at length, but I will confine myself to the material facts.
27. It is the case of the plaintiff that it is a reputed manufacturers of walk-in-chillers and walk-in-freezers providing energy efficient and best refrigeration and are also pioneers in modular cold rooms and well known for several innovations and the company is first in the industry from pre-coolers to ripening chambers.
28. That, the first defendant is a non-Govt. Company and second and third defendants are its Directors.
29. That, the defendants had placed purchase orders from the plaintiff for prefabricated construction refrigeration systems for cold room, freezer room and insulation panels for walls and doors. Since all the terms and conditions including quality were accepted, total invoice of ₹.2,63,91,190/- was raised. That, out of that, ₹.2,41,60,001/- has been paid on various dates and the /15/ Com.O.S.No.1480/2022 remaining due amount is ₹.26,11,191/- as on 17.06.2020.
30. That, as the defendant failed to pay the due amount to the plaintiff, without there being any other option the plaintiff has issued legal notice dated 07.12.2021 which came to be served on the defendants. That, the defendants vide reply notice dated 04.01.2022 though admitted the transactions, took unethical plea stating that they are not due any amount payable to the plaintiff.
31. It is further contended that, the defendants after obtaining the services of the plaintiff cannot withhold the legitimate amount belonging to the plaintiff. That, the defendants are liable to pay an interest @ 12% p.a. on the outstanding amount of ₹.26,11,191/- from the last date of payment i.e., 17.06.2020. The calculation is as under:
Outstanding amount ₹.26,11,191/-
Interest @ 12% p.a. from ₹.6.78.910/-
17.06.2020 for a period of 26
months
Total ₹.32,90,101/-
/16/
Com.O.S.No.1480/2022
32. All the efforts made by the plaintiff to secure the amount from the defendants did not yield any result. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file this suit.
33. On the other hand the defendants have filed written statement contending that suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by time and prays to dismiss the suit.
34. In order to support the case of the plaintiff proprietary concern the Authorized Signatory of the plaintiff has filed affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief and examined himself as PW.1 reiterating almost all the contents of the plaint. Apart from, PW.1 got produced the copy of Board Resolution and it is marked at Ex.P.1. The Ex.P.2 (1) to Ex.P.2(25) are the 25 original invoices. On careful perusal of the said invoices it is crystal clear that for the year 2017 and 2018 the plaintiff has supplied various goods in favor of defendant No.1.
35. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RFA No.844/2010 dated 23.08.2023 in between M/s.Stove Kraft Pvt., Ltd., Vs. M/s.Pradeep Stainless Steel India Pvt. Ltd., has held as follows:
/17/ Com.O.S.No.1480/2022 'It is also settled that invoices amount to 'written contracts' within the provision of Order XXXVII of CPC. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff has brought the instant suit based on invoices raised for supply of goods'.
36. On perusal of the above principal of law it appears whenever the plaintiff has based his case upon the invoices and produced the copies of the invoices along with documents to show that the goods were supplied to the defendants then the Court can draw a presumption that the defendants are liable to pay the amount as mentioned in the invoices.
37. The Ex.P3 is the office copy of the legal notice dated 07.12.2021 through which the plaintiff herein has called upon the defendants to pay the due amount of ₹.28,41,190/- along with interest @ 24% p.a.
38. The Ex.P.4(1) to Ex.P.4(3) are the postal receipts and Ex.P.5(1) to Ex.P.5(3) are the postal acknowledgments which are not in dispute. The Ex.P.6 is the clinching document which supports the case of the plaintiff which is /18/ Com.O.S.No.1480/2022 the reply notice issued by defendants on 04.01.2022. In the said reply notice the defendants have clearly admitted that they have accepted the delivery of the machinery and materials supplied by the plaintiff. It is further admitted that the plaintiffs raised invoices for payment of ₹.2,63,91,190/- and out of which the defendants had paid ₹.2,35,50,000/-. However, the only disputed fact which is raised in the said reply notice is relating to refund of GST and failure on the part of plaintiff to rectify or replace the defective machinery. On careful perusal of the said admission on behalf of defendant vide reply notice it appears there is no dispute regarding the commercial transaction that took place in between the plaintiff and the defendant. The only disputed fact is that the plaintiff has supplied defective machinery and did not turn up to either rectify it or replace it. However, in my opinion the defendants herein for the first time have raised such an objection in the reply notice and they have not issued any independent legal notice calling upon the plaintiff and intimating them regarding the defective machinery and so on. There was no impediment for the plaintiff to call upon the defendants at the first instance to either rectify the defective materials or replace it. Had the plaintiff has /19/ Com.O.S.No.1480/2022 supplied the defective materials, the defendants voluntarily would have raised the issues at first instance. The non- raising of the issue by the defendants is sufficient to draw an inference that the defendants submission that the plaintiff supplied defective goods is not believable and trustworthy.
39. It is also pertinent to note that the defendants in the same reply notice have raised the untenable defense that they have issued cheque for ₹.6,00,000/- hurriedly, in my opinion the said defense of the defendant cannot be accepted as no ordinary prudent man would issue cheque in hurry without verifying it.
40. The Ex.P.7 is the copy of PIM Report issued by DLSA. The Ex.P.8 is the true copy of the account ledger extract wherein it appears as on 21.09.2022 the defendants are liable to pay ₹.26,11,191/- to the plaintiff. The said document itself is sufficient to conclude that the last payment made by the defendant is on 17.06.2020.
41. The Ex.P.9 is the Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act.
/20/ Com.O.S.No.1480/2022
42. The learned counsel for defendants has Cross- examined the PW.1 at length however nothing useful is elicited from the mouth of the witness which goes against to the case of the PW.1.
43. However, during the course of Cross-examination itself the defendant counsel has elicited from the mouth of PW.1 that the defendant company has not made any payment in respect of 6 invoices which are at Ex.P.2(20) to Ex.P.2(25). In fact, the defendant ought to have denied the case of the plaintiff stating that defendants have already made entire payment. Per contra, the defendants counsel has brought evidence from the mouth of PW.1 regarding the non payments of the defendants. Hence, the said portion of evidence is fatal to the case of the defendants and in fact supports the plaintiff's case.
44. In this case, even though the defendants have filed written statement, they failed to convert the defense into evidence. Here I seek to cite a decision reported in AIR 1999 Supreme Court of India Page No. 1441, between Vidyadhar V/s Manikrao, wherein it is held as follows.
"Where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states /21/ Com.O.S.No.1480/2022 his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross-examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not CORRECT."
45. Keeping in view the law declared in the above cited decision, once again I reiterate that the defendants have not entered the witness box and stated their own case on oath and does not offer themselves to be cross-examined. Thus, the law declared in the above cited decision is aptly applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. Therefore, a presumption must be drawn to the effect that the case set up by the defendants are not correct. Admittedly, the plaintiff has denied all the documents produced by the defendants by filing Statement of Admissions and Denial of documents.
46. On marshaling entire evidence on record and on meticulous perusal of the Ex.P.1 to Ex,.P9 it is crystal clear the defendants after purchase of goods from the plaintiff, they have failed to repay a balance amount of ₹.32,90,101/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of suit till its realization. Hence, I answer issue No.1 in AFFIRMATIVE.
/22/ Com.O.S.No.1480/2022
47. Issue No.2: In view of the discussions made by me on Issue No.1, the issue No.2 does not survive for consideration.
48. Issue No.3 and 4: For the purpose of brevity and convenience I would like to answer above two issues in common.
49. It is the specific case of the defendants that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation and that the defendants have suffered loss on account of defects in the machinery supplied by the plaintiff and on account of defective service rendered by the plaintiff.
50. Keeping in mind the above specific defense of the defendants, I have bestowed my attention to the account ledger extract Ex.P.8 wherein it appears the last payment which is made by the defendants is in the year 2020 hence the cause of action for the first time accrued to the plaintiff in the year 2020 and as the suit is filed in the year 2022, I am of the opinion that the suit is well within the period of limitation.
/23/ Com.O.S.No.1480/2022
51. The second defense which is raised by the defendants regarding the defective goods supplied by the plaintiff and defective service, I am of the opinion that the defendants did not raise the said issue voluntarily for the first instance. Admittedly, the defendants raised the said issues only after receiving the legal notice from the plaintiff. After receiving the notice from the plaintiff, as a counterblast the defendants replied and raised the said issue which are not admissible in the eye of law. Hence, I answer above Issue No.3 and 4 in the NEGATIVE.
52. Issue No.5: In view of the above discussions, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to claim the suit claim amount of ₹.32,90,101/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of suit till its realization. Hence, I answer the above Issue in the AFFIRMATIVE.
53. Issue No.6: In view of my discussion and findings on Issue No:1 to 5, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit filed by plaintiff is hereby decreed with costs.
/24/ Com.O.S.No.1480/2022 The defendants No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of ₹.32,90,101/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lakhs Ninety Thousand One Hundred and One Only) along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of suit till its realization.
The pending IAs if any are disposed off accordingly.
Draw decree accordingly.
The office is hereby directed to send a copy of the judgment to the plaintiff and the defendants through e-mail as per Order XX Rule 1 CPC as amended by Section 16 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
(Directly dictated to the Stenographer on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of JANUARY 2025).
(K.M.RAJENDRA KUMAR) LXXXIX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-90) /25/ Com.O.S.No.1480/2022 ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff:
P.W.1 Sri.Manikandan Rajalingam List of documents exhibited on behalf of the plaintiff:
Sl.No. Particulars of documents Ex.P.
01. Copy of the Resolution of the Board Ex.P.1 dated 02.12.2011
02. Original invoices Ex.P.2(1) to Ex.P.2(25)
03. Office copy of legal notice dated Ex.P.3 04.01.2022
04. Postal receipts Ex.P.4 (1) to (3)
05. Postal acknowledgment Ex.P.5(1) to (3)
06. Reply Notice dated 04.01.2022 Ex.P.6
07. Non-Starter Report dated 13.04.2022 Ex.P.7 issued in PIM 90/2022
08. Ledger Extract in respect of defendant Ex.P.8
09. Certificate under Section 65B of Ex.P.9 Indian Evidence Act /26/ Com.O.S.No.1480/2022 List of witnesses examined for the defendant/s:
NIL List of documents marked for the defendant/s:
NIL (K.M.RAJENDRA KUMAR) LXXXIX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-90) ****