Delhi District Court
Cache Infotech Pvt Ltd vs Magnum Opus on 29 April, 2024
Page 1 of 10
IN THE COURT OF MS. NAVITA KUMARI BAGHA, DJ02 (SOUTHEAST),
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS No.116/2018
CNR No. DLSE01005012018
Cache Infotech Pvt. Ltd.
(Through its Director Alok Gupta)
Office at:
56, 5th Floor, Deepak Building,
13, Nehru Place, New Delhi110019
............. Plaintiff
Versus
Magnum Opus
(Through its Director Sh. Ashish Khushu)
Office At:
DMD APL Apollo Tubes Ltd.
36, Kaushambi,
Ghaziabad201010, U.P.
............ Defendant
Date of Institution : 19.01.2018
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 29.04.2024
Suit for Recovery of Rs.15,95,570/ along with interest @ 12% per
annum from the date of default till realization
EXPARTE JUDGMENT
1.The present suit was filed by plaintiff against the defendants on CS DJ No.116/2018 M/s. Cache Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Magnum opus Page 2 of 10 19.01.2018. The brief facts of the suit as narrated in the Plaint are as follows:
"1.1 The plaintiff is a company duly incorporated and registered under The Companies Act and carrying on the business of selling computers and its parts and the defendant is a private limited company, having the business of selling and purchasing of computers and its spare parts.
1.2 The defendant had approached the plaintiff for purchasing computers, laptops and computer peripherals on assurance that the bill amount will be paid. The plaintiff supplied to the defendant computers, laptops and computer peripherals from time to time against which invoices were raised by the plaintiff which were duly received and acknowledged by the defendant and some payments were also made by the defendant. 1.3 The plaintiff had supplied material of total cost of Rs.13,95,570/ (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs NinetyFive Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy only). But the CS DJ No.116/2018 M/s. Cache Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Magnum opus Page 3 of 10 payment of aforesaid amount was not made by the defendant and therefore, Legal Notice dated 08.08.2017 was got issued by the plaintiff through its counsel. But despite service of Legal Notice, the defendant did not make the payment. 1.4 Hence, the present suit was filed for recovery of Rs.15,95,570/ (which included the sale amount of Rs.13,95,570/ and Rs.2,00,000/ towards loss of business), litigation expenses of Rs.30,000/ and Rs.5,500/ towards cost of Legal Notice alongwith presuit, pendentelite and future interest @ 12% per annum."
2. Summons of the suit were issued to the defendant, but despite service of summons, the defendant did not appear and therefore, the defendant was proceeded against exparte.
3. In order to prove its case, the plaintiff has examined only one witness i.e. its Director Sh. Alok Gupta as PW1. The affidavit of evidence was filed by PW1 on 11.12.2023. In the said affidavit of evidence i.e. Ex.PW1/1, he reiterated and reaffirmed the contents of the Plaint. CS DJ No.116/2018 M/s. Cache Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Magnum opus Page 4 of 10 While reiterating the facts, mentioned in the Plaint, he, in order to prove the case, exhibited the following documents:
(i) Ex. PW1/A - Certificate of Incorporation of plaintiff.
(ii) Ex.PW1/B - Board Resolution dated 20.08.2017 of plaintiff in favour of PW1.
(iii) Ex.PW1/C(colly.) - Certified copy of Ledger Account maintained by plaintiff.
(iv) Ex.PW1/D(colly.) - Invoices dated 24.05.2014 to 09.03.2016.
(v) Ex.PW1/E - Legal Notice dated 08.08.2017 issued by plaintiff to defendant.
(vi) Ex.PW1/F (colly.) - Postal Receipts & Courier Receipt vide which the aforesaid notice was sent to defendant.
4. On 03.02.2024, additional Affidavit of evidence was filed by PW1 by taking permission from the Court and during his reexamination dated 03.02.2024, he exhibited the following documents:
(i) Ex. PW1/G - Statement of accounts of defendant for the CS DJ No.116/2018 M/s. Cache Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Magnum opus Page 5 of 10 period starting from 17.05.2014 to 09.03.2016, maintained by the plaintiff.
(ii) Ex.PW1/H(colly.) - 49 invoices, raised by plaintiff against the material supplied to defendant.
5. I have heard the exparte final arguments from counsel Sh. S. Rohit Kumar for plaintiff and perused the record.
6. The Counsel for plaintiff has argued that this Court has territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit as the defendant had approached the plaintiff at its office situated at Nehru Place, New Delhi for placing Purchase Orders and the material was supplied to the defendant from its Delhi Office and the part payment was also made by the defendant in Delhi. The PW1 has duly proved vide Ex.PW1/A i.e. Certificate of Incorporation of plaintiff that its office is situated at Nehru Place, New Delhi. He has also proved the invoices Ex.PW1/D(colly.) & Ex.PW1/H (colly.), Ledger Account Ex.PW1/C and Statement of Account Ex.PW1/G, all raised from the office of plaintiff at New Delhi. He has also proved the Legal Notice Ex.PW1/E, which was also issued from New Delhi. As the evidence of plaintiff has gone CS DJ No.116/2018 M/s. Cache Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Magnum opus Page 6 of 10 unchallenged and unrebutted, so it stands proved on the basis of abovesaid documents that this Court has territorial jurisdiction to try the present case.
7. The present suit has been filed by plaintiff for recovery of amount of goods supplied to the defendant vide invoices Ex.PW1/D (Colly.). As per the case of plaintiff, it had supplied material to defendants from time to time vide 49 invoices i.e. Ex.PW1/H(Colly.) and the defendant had made part payment also. The ledger account and statement of account i.e. Ex.PW1/C (Colly.) and Ex.PW1/G (Colly.) contain entries pertaining to supply of material to defendant and payment received from it. As per the ledger account and statement of account, the last payment was received from defendant on 02.03.2016 of Rs.45,000/. As per the Statement of Accounts of the defendant, maintained by the plaintiff, at the time of closing balance, an amount of Rs.13,95,570/ was due against the defendant. Thus, the present is a suit for the recovery of balance due on a running account and thus Article 1 of Limitation Act, 1963 is application in this case. As per Article 1, the period of limitation of 3 years starts from the close of the year in which the last item admitted or proved is entered in the CS DJ No.116/2018 M/s. Cache Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Magnum opus Page 7 of 10 account. Since the fact of defendant's having made last payment on 02.03.2016 gone unchallenged and uncontroverted, so, the period of limitation for filing the present suit had started from 31.03.2016 i.e. from the close of the year in which the last item admitted/proved is entered in the account, which in this case is 02.03.2016. Since the present suit was filed on 20.01.2018, therefore, the same is well within the period of limitation.
8. The PW1 in his Affidavit of evidence has deposed that the plaintiff is a company duly incorporated and registered under The Companies Act, 1956 and has been duly issued the Certificate of Incorporation by the Registrar of Companies, which is Ex.PW1/A. He has further deposed that the plaintiff is engaged in the business of selling computers and its parts and he is the Director of plaintiff and has been duly authorized vide Board Resolution Ex.PW1/B to file the present suit and is well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case. He has further deposed that the defendant is a Private Limited Company, engaged in the business of sale and purchase of computers & its spare parts and the defendant had approached the plaintiff at its office situated at Nehru Place, New Delhi for purchasing computers, laptops CS DJ No.116/2018 M/s. Cache Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Magnum opus Page 8 of 10 and computer peripherals and assured that the bill amount would be paid and on the said assurance and the prevalent market practice, the goods were supplied to the defendant on credit basis. He has further deposed that the plaintiff had raised invoices against the computers, laptops and computer peripherals supplied to defendant from time to time, which were duly received and acknowledged by the defendant and part payment was also made by the defendant, but as the entire payment was not made by the defendant, so a total sale amount of Rs.13,95,570/ against retail invoices Ex.PW1/D (colly.) remained unpaid and the ledger account, maintained with the plaintiff, in this regard is Ex.PW1/C. He has further deposed that when the defendant did not clear the aforesaid payment, the plaintiff was constrained to send Legal Notice dated 08.08.2017 i.e. Ex.PW1/E to the defendant vide postal receipts and courier receipt Ex.PW1/F(colly.), but despite service of notice, no payment was made by the defendant.
9. Since the defendant, in the present case is exparte, so the evidence of the plaintiff has gone unchallenged and unrebutted and therefore, I have no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW1. In his unchallenged and uncontroverted testimony, the PW1 has duly CS DJ No.116/2018 M/s. Cache Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Magnum opus Page 9 of 10 proved the business transactions between the parties and the amount due against the defendant vide ledger account and statement of account Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/G. Hence, the suit is liable to be decreed in favour of the plaintiff for the aforesaid amount of Rs.13,95,570/.
10. So far as the claim of plaintiff regarding Rs.2,00,000/ towards loss of business is concerned, the plaintiff has not led any evidence to prove the same. Hence, the claim of plaintiff of Rs.2,00,000/ towards loss of business is dismissed.
11. The plaintiff has claimed presuit, pendentlite and future interest @ 12% per annum in its Plaint. So far as the interest part is concerned, Sec.34 of CPC deals with the pendentelite and future interest whereas the payment of presuit interest is governed by Sec.3 and 4 of Interest Act, 1978. As per Sec.3(1)(a) of Interest Act, if the proceedings relate to a debt payable by virtue of a written instrument at a certain time, then, the interest may be allowed from the date when the debt is payable. And debt has been defined in Sec.2(c) of Interest Act as any liability for an ascertained sum of money. In the present case, the counsel for plaintiff, during the arguments, has submitted CS DJ No.116/2018 M/s. Cache Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Magnum opus Page 10 of 10 that though as per the written instruments i.e. invoices Ex.PW1/D (colly.), (which have been duly acknowledged by the defendant), the rate of interest to be charged is 24% per annum, but the plaintiff is claiming interest only @12% per annum. Hence, this suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.13,95,570/ (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs NinetyFive Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy only) alongwith interest (presuit and pendentelite) @12% per annum w.e.f. 09.03.2016 till the date of this order and future interest @ 6% per annum till realization. Costs of the suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff. Decreesheet be prepared accordingly.
12. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.
(Announced in open
Court on 29.04.2024) (Navita Kumari Bagha)
ADJ02, South East District,
Saket Courts, New Delhi
CS DJ No.116/2018
M/s. Cache Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Magnum opus