Delhi District Court
Through Its Lawful Attorney vs M/S Electrolus Kelvinator Limited on 29 September, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. ROHIT GULIA, CIVIL JUDGE, DELHI
(WEST)02
SUIT NO.456/01
Unique Case ID No 02401C0242802001
Sh. Deepak Bhattarcharya
C/o Bhattarcharya & Associates,
Solicitors, Advocates, Notaries,
A170, Defence Colony, New Delhi - 110024
Through its lawful Attorney, Mr. B.J. Basu Roy
..........................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1.M/s Electrolus Kelvinator Limited Through Mr. Ram S. Ramasundar, Managing Director, M/s Electrolux Kelvinator Limited Flat No.201202, A22 Green Park, Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi - 110016
2. Mr. Akhil Prasad, AGM, Legal, Global Business Park, 2nd & 3rd Floor, Mehrauli - Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon 122002 .....................DEFENDANTS Suit filed on - 10/09/2001 Judgment Reserved on - 30/08/2012 Date of decision - 29/09/2012 Suit No.456/01 Page1/7 2 SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.13,100/ (Rupees Thirteen Thousand And One Hundred Only) EX PARTE JUDGMENT: By this exparte judgment I shall dispose off a suit for recovery of Rs.13,100/ filed by the plaintiff.
1. The brief facts of the case as per plaint are that the plaintiff is an association of a law firm having its registered Head Office at A170, Defense Colony, New Delhi110024 and also having its Branch Offices at Mumbai, Chenai, Bangalore, Chandigarh, Guwahati, Patna and Nagpur.
The defendant no.1 is a company having its registered Office at Flat No. 201202, A22 Green Park, Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi110016 and also has its office at Global Business Park, 2nd & 3rd Floor, MehrauliGurgoan Road, Gurgoan - 122002. The defendants no.2 is an employee of defendant no.1.
The defendant no.1 assigned the plaintiff to give legal opinions and the plaintiff, relying on the statement made by the defendants, especially defendant no.2, in the conference held between the parties on 03/08/2000 at the premises of the plaintiff, proceeded and delivered to the defendants the legal opinion with respect to subject matters as asked for.
It is further submitted that the plaintiff vide Bill, Reference no. B&A/67 dated 28/10/2000, requested the defendant no.2 to pay the bills for the Suit No.456/01 Page2/7 3 months of August and September 2000. The total amount claimed by the plaintiff for the above mentioned bill is Rs. 13,100/ only.
That the plaintiff vide letter, Reference no. B&A/67 dated 16/02/2001, again requested the defendant no.2 to pay the bills for the months of August and September 2000 for the above mentioned legal opinions. (AnnexureE).
It is further submitted that the defendant are liable to pay the amounts charged in the bill dated 28/10/2000 to the plaintiff for the work done and services tendered.
It has been prayed that a decree for a sum of Rs.13,100/ be passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.
2. The defendants were duly served and have filed the WS wherein they have taken certain preliminary objections like that the plaintiff has not disclosed the specific nature of the case. That there is no cause of action in favour of plaintiff and the plaintiff has filed the present suit only to harass and humiliate the defendants. That the present suit is not maintainable before this court. The suit is liable to be dismissed as it is not filed by a competent person. That the present suit has not been filed as per High Court Rules and deserves to be dismissed.
All other averments made in the plaint were denied by the defendants and the main objection taken by the defendants is that while accepting the brief for giving opinion and while giving opinion, the plaintiff never disclosed that it will charge any fees and the plaintiff himself has declined to claim any fees for any opinion.
Suit No.456/01 Page3/7
4
3. The plaintiff has also filed the replication to the WS of the defendants in which it has denied the contents of the WS and has reiterated and reaffirmed the facts as mentioned in the plaint.
4. From the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed on 11/11/2003 :
1. Whether the suit has not been instituted by competent person?
OPD
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount as prayed for?
OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest, if so, at what rate and for what period? OPP
4. Relief.
5. Thereafter, the matter was kept for PE and the PW1 was examined in chief on 10/5/2005 in the presence of the counsel for the defendants and the adjournment was given at the request of the counsel for the defendants for the crossexamination of the PW1, but the defendants failed to appear and cross examine the PW and were accordingly proceeded with exparte vide order dt. 16/02/06. Thereafter, the defendant filed an application U/O 9 R.7 CPC for setting aside the exparte order dt.16/02/06. That after filing the application, the defendants further failed to pursue the matter and the application was also dismissed in default as well as for nonprosecution vide order dt.15/12/09.
Suit No.456/01 Page4/7
5
6. Evidence has been led, arguments have been heard & record has been carefully perused. Perusal of the record shows that the suit has been filed against the defendant no.2 who is the AGM (Legal) of the defendant no.1. As the defendant no.2 being the AGM (Legal) was acting on behalf of defendant no.1 i.e. a company, therefore, there is no personal liability of the defendant no.2 and the defendant no.2 will only be liable in the capacity of the AGM (Legal).
7. In evidence in order to prove its case the plaintiff got examined Sh. B.J. Basy Roy as PW1 who reiterated and reaffirmed the facts as mentioned in the plaint. Now, I shall give my issue wise findings which are as under :
8. ISSUE NO.1 Whether the suit has not been instituted by competent person? OPD The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendants. The defendants have failed to crossexamine the PW or to lead any evidence in order to prove this issue.
therefore, the issue remains unproved and accordingly is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff
9. ISSUE NO.2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount as prayed for? OPP The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. Plaintiff led evidence and exhibited some documents in order to prove the issue which are as under : Suit No.456/01 Page5/7 6 Ext. PW1/1 is the GPA dt.01/01/2000 in favour of PW1. Ext. PW1/2 is the letter of legal opinion dt.05/08/2000. The faxed letter dt. 06/09/2000 and 11/09/2000 are exhibited as Ext. PW1/3. The main dt.14/09/01 and faxed letter dt.19/09/2000 are Ext. PW1/4. The office copy of the Bill dt. 28/10/2000 is Ext. PW1/5. The copy of the letter dt.16/02/2001 is Ext. PW1/6. The letter dt.27/04/01 is Ext. PW1/7. The copy of the letter dt.07/05/01 is Ext. PW1/8. The reply of the plaintiff vide letter dt.22/05/01 is Ext. PW1/9. The fax dt.24/05/11 is Ext. PW1/10.
The documents have been duly proved and as the defendants have failed to crossexamine the PW1, therefore, there is nothing on record to disbelieve the testimony of the PW1. Further, the failure of the defendants to crossexamine the plaintiff's witness i.e. PW1 gives credence to the testimony of the PW1.
Therefore, the plaintiff has been able to prove that they are entitled for a decree of Rs.13,100/ and accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
10. ISSUE NO. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest, if so, at what rate and for what period? OPP The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. As the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of Rs.13,100/, therefore, plaintiff is also entitled for the interest on the above said amount from the date of bill i.e. 28/10/2000 exhibited as Ext. PW1/5.
Suit No.456/01 Page6/7
7
Therefore, interest @10% per annum is awarded to the plaintiff from 28/10/2000 till the realisation of the amount.
Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.
11. ISSUE NO.4 RELIEF In view of the findings given on issues no.1 to 3, documents placed on record, pleadings of the parties and evidence led by the parties, the plaintiff has proved his case on the scale of preponderance of probabilities.
As the defendant no.2 was the AGM (Legal) of the defendant no.1, therefore, the defendant no.2 is only liable in the capacity of the AGM (Legal) of the defendant no.1 and there is no personal liability of defendant no.2.
Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed and following relief is awarded in favour of plaintiff :
1. A decree for a sum of Rs.13,100/ (Rupees Thirteen Thousand One Hundred Only) as principal amount alongwith pendentelite interest @10% per annum from 28/10/2000 till realisation.
2. Costs of the suit.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room after completing the necessary formalities.
(ROHIT GULIA) Civil Judge, Delhi (West)02 Announced in the open court on 29/09/2012.
Suit No.456/01 Page7/7