Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

M/S Karmer Electronics Asia Pacific Pvt ... vs C S Direkt Events And Exhibitions Pvt. ... on 24 December, 2024

 In the Court of Shri Ashutosh Kumar, District Judge (Commercial
         Court)-01, Tis Hazari Courts, West District, Delhi

CS (Comm.) No. 692/2021
CNR No. DLWT01-010162-2021

M/s Kramer Electronics Asia Pacific Pte Ltd.
Having its office at:
69, Ubi Cresent,
#03-06/07, CES Building,
Singapore-408561
Also at:
18, Sufiya Elite,
3rd Floor, Cunningham Road,
Bangalore-560052, Karnataka
                                                                                      ....... Plaintiff
Vs.

C S Direkt Events And Exhibitions
Private Limited and Modern Stage Service JV
Having its office at:-
24/107, 2nd Floor,
West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi-110048

                                                                                   .........Defendant
Date of Institution                            : 22.12.2021
Date of hearing of arguments                   : 24.12.2024
Date of decision                               : 24.12.2024

          Counsel for the plaintiff: Sh. Kartikey Nayyar & Sh. Yatharth Jain
                            Counsel for the Defendant: Sh. Pulkit Aggarwal




CS (Comm.) No. 692­21   Karmer Electronics Asia Pacific Pvt. Ltd. Vs C S Direkt Events And Exhitions Pvt.
                                      Ltd. & Modern Stage Service JV                         page No.1 of 17
                                        JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the case of the plaintiff as per relevant paragraph nos. 1 to 19 of the plaint are reproduced below:-

"1. That the Plaintiff Company is a Company engaged in the business of Professional Audio-Visual Integration Equipment. Whereas the Defendant Company is a Joint Venture between CS Direkt and Exhibitions Pvt. Ltd. and Modern Stage Service, engaged in the business of Marketing.

2. That the Plaintiff is a well recognized and a leading player in designing , manufacturing and distributing signal management products for analog and digital video signals , audio signals ,computer graphics , etc . , which are used in the professional Audio Visual (AV ), broadcast production and residential AV markets worldwide . It is further stated that Plaintiff is a pioneer in the above industry having customers in over 90 countries across 6 continents and has built a reputation of its own in the market by providing the highest level of professional service and support in the above industry . 3 . That the Defendant Company had approached the Plaintiff Company for supply and purchase of the various equipments used in Audio Visual Integration ( hereinafter referred to as " the Products " ) . After various rounds of discussions with respect to the Products as well as other conditions of the sale, the Defendant Company issued a Purchase Order dated 14 July 2020 for an amount of USD 92,032.00 upon the Plaintiff Company for supply of the Products and circulated the same over email dated 14 th July 2020 . It was expressly agreed between the parties that the Custom Clearance for the consignment shall be undertaken by the Defendant Company, independently.

4 . That it was agreed between the parties that an amount of USD 15,000.00 shall be paid by the Defendant Company to the Plaintiff Company as an CS (Comm.) No. 692­21 Karmer Electronics Asia Pacific Pvt. Ltd. Vs C S Direkt Events And Exhitions Pvt.

advance payment towards purchase of the Products . It was also agreed that the Defendant Company shall pay the remaining amount of USD 77,032.00 to the Plaintiff Company within 10 days from the date of delivery of products at Delhi, India .

5 . That although the Defendant Company assured the Plaintiff Company vide its email dated 14 th July 2020 that the advance payment in terms of the Purchase Order shall be made by them to the Plaintiff Company within two (2) days, no advance payment was received by the Plaintiff Company from the Defendant Company within the time period as assured by the Defendant Company . Thereafter, the authorised representatives of the Defendant Company reached out to the authorised representatives of the Plaintiff Company and requested them to process the despatch of the consignment containing the Products without waiting for the advance payment as they shall make the entire payment in lieu of the purchase order within 10 days from the delivery of the Products. 6 . That it is only after the verbal request and assurance of the authorised representatives of the Defendant Company, the Plaintiff Company dispatched & delivered the Products . In lieu of the Products supplied to the Defendant Company in terms of the Purchase Order dated 14 th July 2020 , the Plaintiff Company issued the Export Invoice dated 30 th July 2020 with the following details:-

                          Sl. Export Invoice      Date of Invoice     Total
                          N No.                                       Amout
                          o.                                          (in
                                                                      USD)
                             20865000262                 30.07 . 2020                  92,032.
                                                                                       00
                                                         Total Balance                 92,032.
                                                         Outstanding due               00

7. That the Products despatched by the Plaintiff Company were duly delivered to the Defendant CS (Comm.) No. 692­21 Karmer Electronics Asia Pacific Pvt. Ltd. Vs C S Direkt Events And Exhitions Pvt.

Company at Delhi on 5th August 2020 . As was agreed between the parties and was also assured by the Defendant Company , the entire payment was to be made by the . Defendant Company to the Plaintiff Company within 10 days from the date of delivery of the Products . Accordingly , the entire payment should have been made by the Defendant Company to the Plaintiff Company by 15 th August 2020 .

8. That despite having received the Products , the Defendant Company was relucted to make the payment against the Invoice raised by the Plaintiff Company and deferred the payment on one pretext or the other . The Defendant Company kept on delaying the payment from time to time and finally assured the Plaintiff Company that the payment shall be made by them before 29 th October 2021.

9 . That since the assurances and requests of the Defendant Company were yielding no satisfactory result, the Plaintiff Company were constrained to send a follow up email dated 31 st October 2020 to the Defendant Company requesting them to clear the payment which is pending for a long . Although, the Defendant Company responded to the abovementioned email by apologizing for the delay in payment and sought more time for the payment.

10. That the Plaintiff Company issued another email on 10th December 2020 expressing their displeasure towards the conduct of the Defendant Company in not making the payment of the outstanding amount after lapse of substantial time. In response to the abovementioned email , the Defendant Company issued another mail on 28 th January 2021 and requested the Plaintiff Company to permit them to make the payment in two instalments with an assurance to make the first payment in the first half of February 2021 and the remaining payment in the month of March 2021. Since the Defendant Company had already delayed the payments by more than six months, the Plaintiff Company vide another email dated 28 th January 2021 agreed to the deferred payment by the Defendant Company but called upon CS (Comm.) No. 692­21 Karmer Electronics Asia Pacific Pvt. Ltd. Vs C S Direkt Events And Exhitions Pvt.

them to make the payment of the first instalment by 7th February 2021 based on the agreed new payment schedule as suggested by the Defendant Company subject to a levy of interest calculated @ 2% per month from the date of invoice. The Defendant Company impliedly agreed to the abovementioned offer of the Plaintiff Company vide its email response dated 5th February 2021 but requested the Plaintiff Company to reconsider the dales proposed by them.

11. That despite assuring the Plaintiff Company to make the first instalment of the payment in the first half of February 2021,the Defendant Company issued an email to Plaintiff Company on 17 th February 2021 and sought further time to make the payment of the entire amount to the Plaintiff Company by end of the February or latest by 10th March 2021."

2 The prime defence of the defendant as is evident from following paragraph nos. 1 to 11 of the preliminary objections of written statement are reproduced below:-

"1.That the aforenoted suit is not duly instituted as the same has not been filed by authorised person of the Plaintiff and hence, the aforenoted suit is liable to be dismissed. There is no authority in favour of Shri Rajesh Sivaramakrishnan to file or institute the present suit. There is neither any valid authority/ board resolution on record nor there a mention of such authority in the plaint in favour of Shri Rajesh Sivaramakrishnan. There is no averment in the plaint whatsoever which shows or establishes that Shri Rajesh Sivaramakrishnan had any authority in his favour for filing the present suit. Hence, the aforenoted suit is liable to be dismissed.

2. That the aforenoted suit is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary and proper party and hence is liable to be dismissed.

3. That the plaint in the aforenoted suit is neither supported by a proper and validly attested affidavit and statement of truth nor the plaint if properly CS (Comm.) No. 692­21 Karmer Electronics Asia Pacific Pvt. Ltd. Vs C S Direkt Events And Exhitions Pvt.

verified in terms of the provisions applicable for matters of commercial dispute. The affidavit and statement of truth are neither attested nor are correctly filed. Hence, the aforenoted suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. That the Defendant is neither a company nor a body corporate. Hence, the present suit is not maintainable against the Defendant simplicitor.

5. That the Defendant is a joint venture in the nature of partnership between M/s C.S. Direkt Events and Exhibitions Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Modern Stage Service. Further, all the alleged dealings of the Plaintiff, although denied being frivolous and baseless, has been with Shri Kartik Wadhwa, partner of M/s Modern Stage Services. Hence, Shri Kartik Wadhwa and M/s Modern Stage Service are necessary and proper parties in the present dispute and the present suit in the present form is liable to be dismissed.

6. That there is no privity of contract between the replying Defendant the Plaintiff as all the transactions, dealings and communications, relied upon by the Plaintiff, are only between Plaintiff and M/s Modern Stage Service in their individual capacity and the replying Defendant has no liability arising therefrom. Mr. Kartik Wadhwa of M/s Modern Stage Service has done all the dealings with the Plaintiff in his personal and individual capacity and on behalf of the M/s Modern Stage Service, for which the Defendant is not liable. Hence, no liability can be fixed upon the Defendant or on M/s C.S. Direkt Events and Exhibitions Pvt. Ltd. arising out of any communication or transaction of the Plaintiff with Mr. Kartik Wadhwa or M/s Modern Stage Service. Hence, M/s Modern Stage Service is a necessary and a proper party and the replying Defendant is not liable for any liabilities of the M/s Modern Stage Service.

7. That there is no cause of action and no allegations against the Defendant or against its partner M/s C.S. Direkt Events and Exhibitions Pvt. Ltd. in regard to the alleged claim of the Plaintiff and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed against the replying Defendant.

CS (Comm.) No. 692­21 Karmer Electronics Asia Pacific Pvt. Ltd. Vs C S Direkt Events And Exhitions Pvt.

8. That, as per the records and information of the replying Defendant, the entire liability of the Plaintiff has been paid off and no such alleged claim, as prayed in the aforenoted plaint, survives against the Defendant. The Defendant has already made the entire payment of Rs. 66,06,213.44/- (Rupees Sixty Six Lakh, Six Thousand, Two Hundred, Thirteen and forty four paise only) to the Plaintiff on 20.05.2022, which is admitted by the Plaintiff. After the payment of aforesaid amount, nothing more remains payable towards the Plaintiff. There is no agreement, express or implied, under which the Plaintiff can claim any interest from the Defendant. Further, the payment was made as per the agreed exchange value of USD to INR fixed as on the date of transaction and there is no agreement between the parties under which the Plaintiff can claim any higher amount beyond that. The Plaintiff is frivolously making a wrong computation to mislead this Hon'ble Court. In accordance with the arrangement between the parties, the Plaintiff was paid as per the amount accrued in INR and as per the value of USD as on the date of transaction and the Plaintiff is not entitled to any further amount. Hence, there remains no cause of action against the Defendant or in favour of the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff has already received all its payments and there are no dues pending towards the Plaintiff. Further, neither any admission nor any acknowledgement was/is ever given by the replying Defendant towards any alleged liability of the Plaintiff. Hence, the present suit is nothing more than a vendetta litigation which deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

9. at the Plaintiff has not come before this Hon'ble Court with clean hands and is trying to mislead this Hon'ble Court by falsifying its accounts and calculations in respect to the present dispute. Hence, the present suit deserves to be dismissed.

10. That the Defendant and M/s C.S. Direkt Events and Exhibitions Pvt. Ltd have throughout been conducting their affair in bonafide manner and are not CS (Comm.) No. 692­21 Karmer Electronics Asia Pacific Pvt. Ltd. Vs C S Direkt Events And Exhitions Pvt.

liable in any manner towards the Plaintiff or towards any liability as prayed by the Plaintiff in the plaint filed in aforenoted suit.

11. That there has already been arisen an inter-se dispute between the M/s C.S. Direkt Events and Exhibitions Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Modern Stage Service because of the non-cooperative, greedy, questionable, wrongful, deceitful and malafide intentions of M/s Modern Stage Services. M/s Modern Stage Service has developed greed and malafide intentions in respect to the funds of the defendant JV because of which the replying Defendant is having to face severe difficulty and harassment. Because of the non-cooperation and greed of M/s Modern Stage Services, the Defendant and M/s C.S. Direkt Events and Exhibitions Pvt. Ltd. has already suffered immense loss. Several transactions of the Defendant got delayed due to the non-cooperation, negligence, greed and failure of the M/s Modern Stage Services to respond on time. Hence, neither the Defendant nor M/s C.S. Direkt Events and Exhibitions Pvt. Ltd. are liable for any liability arising out of any conduct or act of M/s Modern Stage Service. It is only Shri Kartik Wadha and M/s Modern Stage Services who are solely liable for any liability arising out their negligence, mistake or wrongful conduct, if any, towards the Plaintiff. Much so also because the Plaintiff had all its dealings solely and separately with M/s Modern Stage Services. In fact M/s Modern Stage Services are also liable towards the Defendant and M/s C.S. Direkt Events and Exhibitions Pvt. Ltd. due to their wrongful acts. It is, however, clarified that neither the Defendant nor M/s C.S. Direkt Events and Exhibitions Pvt. Ltd. have any liability towards the Plaintiff. It is also clarified that no liability as frivolously alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint under reply exists and the entire claim of the Plaintiff is false and bogus."

3. vide order dated 16.10.2023, the following issues were framed:-

CS (Comm.) No. 692­21 Karmer Electronics Asia Pacific Pvt. Ltd. Vs C S Direkt Events And Exhitions Pvt.

i) whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.

24,20,631/- alongwith interest from the defendant as alleged? OPP

ii) whether the suit is not filed by a proper authorized person? OP

iii) whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis- joinder of necessary parties? OPD

iv) Whether there is no privity of contract between the parties? OPD

v) whether there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff? OPD

vi) whether the suit is not maintainable against the defendant as plaintiff has failed to implead M/s. Modern Stage Services as separate party as alleged? OPD

vii) whether this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit? OPD

viii) Relief.

4. The plaintiff in support of its case has examined only one witness i.e. PW1 Antariksh Verma. The said witness has exhibited/marked the following documents in tendering of his affidavit of evidence Ex. PW1/A:-

"(1) Copy of letter of authorization dated 28-05-

2024 executed by Rajesh Sivaramakrishnan in my favour has been mentioned as Ex.PW-1/1 in my affidavit of evidence Ex. PW1/A but since the same is a coloured photocopy, therefore the same is de-exhibited and is marked as Mark PW1/1.

(2) Original Directors Resolution dated 08-07- 2021- Ex. PW-1/2 (3) Purchase order dated 14-07-2020 for USD 92,032.00 - Ex. PW-1/3 (4) Export Invoice dated 30-07-2020 - Ex. PW-

(5) Email communication between the plaintiff CS (Comm.) No. 692­21 Karmer Electronics Asia Pacific Pvt. Ltd. Vs C S Direkt Events And Exhitions Pvt.

and defendant for the period between 13-07-2020 to 17-02-2021 - Ex. PW-1/5 (Colly) (6) Letter dated 25-02-2021 - Ex. PW-1/6 (7) Email communication between the plaintiff and defendant for the period between 27-02-2021 to 21-04-2021 - Ex. PW-1/7 (Colly) (8) Photocopy of Legal Notice dated 27-02-2021 (original of which was) served upon the defendant

- Mark A. (9) Certified true copy of statement of accounts maintained by plaintiff company for its transactions with the defendant till 31-07-2021 - Ex. PW-1/9 (Ld. Counsel for the defendant has objected to the exhibiting of the said document on the ground that the certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 of the witness, does not specifically mention the said document) (Court observation: However I do not find any force in the said objection in view of the fact that the para-3 of the certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act of the witness, clearly mentions the words "statement of account" and the said document is nomenclatured as "Customer statement" but it pertains to the statement of account of the customer).

(10) Print out of website www.xe.com reflecting conversion rate of 1 USD to INR as on 25-11- 2021 - Ex. PW-1/10.

(11) Non-starter report dated 28-10-2021 qua pre- institution mediation between the parties was inadvertently not exhibited in my affidavit of evidence Ex. PW-1/A and is now exhibited as Ex. PW-1/11.

(12) Certificate u/s 65B of the Evidence Act qua the computerized record Ex. PW1/12"

CS (Comm.) No. 692­21 Karmer Electronics Asia Pacific Pvt. Ltd. Vs C S Direkt Events And Exhitions Pvt.

5. The defendant in support of its case had examined DW1 Hari Krishna Kuniyal, AR of M/s C.S. Direkt Events and Exhibitions Pvt. Ltd. , partner of C.S. Direct Events & Exhibition Pvt. Ltd. And Modern Stage Service JV. The relevant part of tendering of his affidavit of evidence in his examination-in-chief is reproduced below:-

"I tender my evidence by way of affidavit, which is Ex. DW1/A, bearing my signatures at points A & B. I rely upon the following documents:-

i) Original Board Resolution dated 19.06.2024 Ex.

ii) Proof of payment of Rs. 66,06,213.44 to the plaintiff on 20.05.2022 i.e. computerized printout of payment voucher dated 20.05.2022 and bank statement of the defendant dated 20.05.2022 was inadvertently mentioned as Ex. DW1/2 in my affidavit of evidence Ex. DW1/A but the same may be read as Ex. DW1/2 (colly)

iii) Affidavit/certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 issued by me is Ex. DW1/3 (Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has objected to the following part of para no. 9 of affidavit of evidence Ex. DW1/A of the witness on the ground that the same is beyond pleadings:-

"whatever payment was to be made, it was to be subsequent to the delivery of goods but there was no definite agreed period".

(Court observation:- The objection raised by ld. Counsel for the plaintiff is borne out from the record and the said part of the affidavit of evidence of the witness shall not be read in evidence, being beyond pleadings)."

6. My issue-wise findings are as under:-

CS (Comm.) No. 692­21 Karmer Electronics Asia Pacific Pvt. Ltd. Vs C S Direkt Events And Exhitions Pvt.

Issue No.1 whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs. 24,20,631/- alongwith interest from the defendant as alleged? OPP 6.1. The onus to prove these issues was upon the plaintiff.

6.2. During course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the defendant had not disputed the purchase order dated 14.07.2020 Ex. PW1/3 placed by the defendant upon the plaintiff for an amount of US Dollar 92,032 and export invoice dated 30.07.2020 Ex. PW1/4 raised by the plaintiff upon the defendant qua the supply of the goods vide the purchase order.

Ld. Counsels for the parties have further admitted that out of the invoice amount totaling to Rs. 68,57,000/- (as per the exchange rate of Rs. 77.98 to a dollar at the time of filing of the suit) claimed by the plaintiff, an amount of Rs. 66,09,400/-has already been paid by the defendant and thus as per the plaintiff, principal amount of Rs. 2,47,600/- was due against the defendant. In my considered opinion, the relevant date for fastening the liability of the defendant qua the goods supplied to the plaintiff, would arise on the date of the export invoice Ex. PW1/4 i.e. 30.07.2020. On that date, one dollar was equivalent to Rs. 74.87/-. Thus, the value of the goods supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant on the said date as per the relevant exchange rate would be 92,032 x 74.87 = Rs. 68,90,435/-. Thus against the liability of Rs. 68,90,435, the defendant had merely paid an amount of Rs. 66,09,400/-. After subtracting the amount paid by the defendant from its principal liability, the net amount comes to Rs. 2,81,035/-. The defendant has not claimed CS (Comm.) No. 692­21 Karmer Electronics Asia Pacific Pvt. Ltd. Vs C S Direkt Events And Exhitions Pvt.

that the said balance amount of Rs. 2,81,035/- has been paid by the defendant to the plaintiff.

6.3. Although admittedly there was no written agreement qua the interest on the delayed payment and PW1 has also admitted in his cross-examination that there was no agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant qua payment of any interest, still in view of the judgment relied upon by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff in the case of "M/s Marwar Tent Factory (appellant) Vs. Union of India & Ors. (respondent), (1990) 1 Supreme Court Cases 71, date of decision: 09.11.1989, on the point of interest, the plaintiff is entitled for interest @ 6% on the aforesaid balance amount due against the defendant from the date of delivery of goods i.e. 15.08.2020.

6.4. Hence the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs. 2,81,035/- from the defendant with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of 15.08.2020 till actual realization. 6.5. Accordingly issue no.1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

7. Issue No. 2 Whether the suit is not filed by a proper authorized person? OPD 7.1. The onus to prove these issues was on the defendant. 7.2. On this issue, PW1 has proved the authority letter Ex. PW1/2 of the plaintiff company issued in favour of Rajesh Sivaramakrishnan (Director Finance & Administration of the plaintiff) by the plaintiff company. Even otherwise, as per Order 29 Rule 1 CPC, CS (Comm.) No. 692­21 Karmer Electronics Asia Pacific Pvt. Ltd. Vs C S Direkt Events And Exhitions Pvt.

the said Rajesh Sivaramakrishnan, being the director Finance & Administration, was authorized on behalf of the plaintiff company to sign and verify the pleadings on behalf of the plaintiff. No other credible material challenging the authority of the said person to file the suit on behalf of the plaintiff is proved by the defendant. Hence this issue is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.

8. Issue No. 3 whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD Issue No. 4 Whether there is no privity of contract between the parties? OPD Issue No. 5 whether there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff? OPD Issue No. 6 whether the suit is not maintainable against the defendant as plaintiff has failed to implead M/s. Modern Stage Services as separate party as alleged? OPD 8.1. All these issues are decided together being interconnected for the sake convenience. The onus to prove these issues was also on the defendants 8.2. The claim of the defendant is that although the defendant was a joint venture, since the transaction took place due to connivance of Kartik Wadhawan, partner of Modern Stage Services (partner of defendant joint venture) in his individual capacity, therefore there is no liability of the defendant joint venture or of C.S. Direct Events And CS (Comm.) No. 692­21 Karmer Electronics Asia Pacific Pvt. Ltd. Vs C S Direkt Events And Exhitions Pvt.

Exhibitions Pvt. Ltd. in its individual capacity as there was no privity of contract.

8.3. However the aforesaid defence of the defendants is contrary to the material on record. Firstly the WS has been filed on behalf of the defendant JV and not on behalf of one of the individual entity C.S. Dirket Events And Exhibitions Pvt. Ltd. (quasi partner). Further the affidavit and statement of truth of Sanjeev Pasricha filed along with the WS on behalf of the defendant mentions the said sanjeev Pasricha as authorized representative/signatory of the defendant and of C.S. Direkt Events and Exhibits Pvt. Ltd. Hence the said person has himself admitted to be representing the defendant joint venture. Also by admitting the factum of aforesaid payment of Rs. 66,09,400/-, it can be inferred that the liability of the defendant jointly to that extent is not disputed. Furthermore, no material has been proved on record that the transaction took place without the knowledge and consent of C.S. Direkt Events and Exhibitions Pvt. Ltd. or that C.S. Direkt Events and Exhibitions Pvt. Ltd. initiated any action against Modern Stage Service. Furthermore, I find force in the argument of Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of 'ITD Cementation India Ltd. (DH) Vs. SSJV-ZVS Joint Venture & Ors., OMP (ENF.) (Comm.) 188/2021, CCP (O) 46/2022, Ex. APPL. (OS) 1316/2021, Ex. APPL (OS) 1318/2021, Ex. APPL (OS) 1319/2021, Ex. APPL. (OS)2822/2022, Ex. APPL. (OS) 3243/2022 and Ex. APPL. (OS) 3311/2022 dated 07.03.2023, that the defendant's CS (Comm.) No. 692­21 Karmer Electronics Asia Pacific Pvt. Ltd. Vs C S Direkt Events And Exhitions Pvt.

joint venture can be treated as a quasi partnership where the two entities jointly undertook the transaction in question for mutual profit and the joint venture had binded itself to the various obligations that stands placed thereunder and to exercise all the rights conferred therein, and the contract in the present case as a result of aforesaid export invoice dated 30.07.2020 Ex. PW1/4 and pursuant to purchase order Ex. PW1/3 would bind the joint venture acting for and on behalf of all its constituents. It can also be inferred from the said judgment that it was not obligatory for the plaintiff to separately array M/s C.S. Direct Events and Exhibitions Pvt. Ltd. as a party to the suit. Except for baldly alleging that there was no cause of action, the defendant has not proved any fact from which it can be inferred that there was no cause of action. Rather from the material on record, cause of action against the defendant is made out. 8.4. In view of the aforesaid discussion, issue no. 3 to 6 are decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.

9. Issue No. 7 whether this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit? OPD 9.1. The onus to prove this issue was on the defendant. 9.2. The defendant has baldly claimed that this Court has no jurisdiction. The plaintiff in its plaint, had specifically mentioned the address of West Patel Nagar of the defendant. Furthermore, DW1 in his cross-examination has not specifically denied the said address of the defendant and hence it can be inferred that the said address belonged to the defendant. In view of the same and in view of the judgment of CS (Comm.) No. 692­21 Karmer Electronics Asia Pacific Pvt. Ltd. Vs C S Direkt Events And Exhitions Pvt.

Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of in the case of Dentsply India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Excel International & Ors., CS (OS) No. 410/1999, date of decision:-10.07.2012, this Court has the territorial jurisdiction.

9.3. During course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the defendant has not disputed the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court. 9.4. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

RELIEF

10. In view of my findings to the aforesaid issues, the suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant for an amount of Rs. 2,81,035/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of 15.08.2020 till actual realization along with costs of the suit.

Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.

File be consigned to the record room.

                                                                               Digitally signed
                                                         ASHUTOSH by ASHUTOSH
                                                                  KUMAR
                                                         KUMAR    Date: 2024.12.24
(Announced in the open             (Ashutosh Kumar)
                                              18:35:58 +0530

Court on 24.12.2024    District Judge (Commercial Court)-1
                           West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi




CS (Comm.) No. 692­21     Karmer Electronics Asia Pacific Pvt. Ltd. Vs C S Direkt Events And Exhitions Pvt.
                                       Ltd. & Modern Stage Service JV                          page No.17 of 17