Delhi District Court
M/S Unimrkt Research Pvt Ltd vs Rakesh Gandhi on 4 January, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SHRI KULDEEP NARAYAN : ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-05 (West) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS No. 44/2014
Unique ID No.02401C0198842014
M/s Unimrkt Research Pvt Ltd.
Having registered office at
Flat No.632, Royal Residency
Plot No.5, Sector-9, Dwarka
New Delhi-110017 ......Plaintiff
V.
M/s IGlobal Research Pvt Ltd
Having office at
C-22, 2nd Floor, New Krishna Park,
Vikas Puri, New Delhi-110018 ......Defendant
Date of Institution : 30.04.2014
Date of reserving Judgment : 10.12.2015
Date of pronouncement : 04.01.2016
JUDGMENT
This order shall decide an application under Order 37 Rule 3(5) CPC seeking grant of leave to defend the suit, moved on behalf of the defendant.
2 The plaintiff filed reply to the aforesaid application. 3 The facts in a nutshell, are that the plaintiff filed a suit under Order 37 CPC against the defendant to recover a sum of Rs.10,84,481/- alongwith pendentelite and future interest. As per the plaint, both the plaintiff and the defendant are engaged in the business of market CS No.44/2014 Page 1/7 research services, carrying out several projects together since November,2012. In their usual course of business, the plaintiff carried out work in respect of two specific projects works namely (1) DFO industry survey and (2) PTC service and manufacturing study for which the defendant had engaged the services of the plaintiff. Upon completion of the aforesaid projects, the plaintiff raised two invoices in the name of the defendant i.e one bearing No. UM-271113816 dated 27.11.2013, amounting to Rs.2,44,883/- and second invoice bearing No. UM271113817 dated 27.11.2013, amounting to Rs.8,39,598/-. The plaintiff sent the aforesaid two invoices vide separate emails both dated 29.11.2013 to the defendant which were duly delivered and acknowledged by the defendant. The plaintiff repeatedly demanded aforesaid outstanding amount of Rs. 10,84,481/-. The defendant duly acknowledged the aforesaid communication vide email dated 10.1.2014 and subsequently one Mr. Bandhu Sharma, Director of the defendant company vide email dated 11.1.2014 categorically admitted to have not paid the afore-said two invoices Both the invoices bearing no. UM- 271113816 and UM-271113817 both dated 27.11.2013 remained unpaid so far, resulting into issuance of legal notice dated 1.4.2014 calling upon the defendant to pay total amount of Rs.10,84,481/- alongwith interest. The aforesaid notice was duly served upon the defendant and was also replied vide reply letter dated 21.4.2014 wherein the aforesaid liability for a sum of Rs. 10,84,481/- was not denied by the defendant. Since the defendant failed to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs.10,84,481/-, despite service of legal notice dated 1.4.2014, the plaintiff filed the present suit.
4 The summons in the prescribed format were served upon CS No.44/2014 Page 2/7 the defendant. The defendant entered appearance and thereafter summons for judgment were issued to the defendant. After service of summons for judgment, the defendant moved the application under Order 37 Rule 3(5) CPC seeking grant of leave to defend the suit. 5 I heard arguments of Mr. Kumar Dushyant and Mr. Siddarath, Advocates, counsel for the plaintiff and Shri Nikhlesh, Advocate, counsel for the defendant.
During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the defendant relied upon the judgments in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu V. Jagannath, 1993 Legal Eagle (SC) 921, Dentsply India Pvt Ltd V. Excel International, 2001 Legal Eagle (Del) 505, Utopian Builders Pvt Ltd. Vs. Rakesh Gandhi, CRP 87/2011 & CM No.12360/2011 and Hari Niwas Gupta V. Om Propmart (P) Ltd etc, 2012 Legal Eagle (Del) 295.
Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the judgments in M/s Mechelec Engineers & Manufacturers V. M/s Basic Equipment Corporation, (1976) 4 SCC 687, Lohmann Rausher Gmbh V. Medisphere Marketing Pvt Ltd., 117(2004) DLT 95, Bharat Forge Ltd V. Onil Gulati, AIR 2005 Del 369 and M/s Park Side Ltd V. M/s Blues Luxury Impex Pvt. Ltd., 2014 (140) DRJ 64.
6 Having heard the submissions on both sides and perused the entire material, I do not find substance in the contentions of the counsel for the defendant.
7 The plaintiff has filed the present suit under Order 37 CPC to recover a sum of Rs. 10,84,481/- from the defendant. The plaintiff has also prayed for grant of interest @ 24% p.a on the suit amount of Rs. 10,84,481/-. As per the record, the defendant has filed a Civil suit bearing CS (OS) No. 1236/2014 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi CS No.44/2014 Page 3/7 for a decree of damages of Rs. 2 crores and injunction etc against the plaintiff company. The defendant itself has filed the invoices bearing no. UM-271113816 and UM-UM271113817, both dated 27.11.2013 as well as the print outs of emails dated 10.1.2014 alongwith certificate under Section 65-B (4) of the Indian Evidence Act,1872, in the said suit before the Hon'ble High Court. It is, therefore, clear that the factum of receipt of invoices bearing no. UM-271113816 and UM-UM271113817, both dated 27.11.2013 and the emails dated 10.1.2014 , has not been disputed by the defendant as the same were filed by it in the suit before the Hon'ble High Court. A perusal of the email dated 10.1.2014 goes to indicate that the liability to pay the amount of Rs.10,84,481/- to the plaintiff was admitted in categorical terms by the defendant. 8 In the entire application under Order 37 Rule 3 (5) of CPC seeking leave to defend the suit, the defendant only mentioned the facts, especially in para-7, running into 9 pages, leading to filing of the suit bearing No. CS (OS) 1236/2014 before the Hon'ble High Court. In para-9 of the application, the defendant merely denied the liability and disputed the invoices raised by the plaintiff. However, at the cost of repetition, it is noted that both the invoices and the liability to pay the amount of Rs.10,84,481/- have been categorically admitted by the defendant vide email dated 10.1.2014. The entire contents of the application under consideration are not relevant to the principal fact in issue in the present suit and are a subject-matter of the suit No.1236/2014 pending before the Hon'ble High Court. In fact, not a single issue has been raised by the defendant which is relevant for the purpose of present suit and is also a triable issue. 9 During the course of arguments, though it was argued by CS No.44/2014 Page 4/7 Ld. Counsel for the defendant that Mr. Kanishk Sheel, Managing Director of the plaintiff, was also a director in the defendant company and as such, he cannot file the present suit, the counsel failed to rely on any judgment or any provision of law to substantiate his contention about the locus of the plaintiff to file the present suit. Even otherwise, M/s Unimrkt Research Pvt Ltd and not Mr. Kanishk Sheel filed the present suit.
10 The other ground raised during the arguments that the email print outs relied upon by the plaintiff are not admissible under the law in the absence of certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, also holds no ground when the invoices and email print outs have already been relied upon in the suit before the Hon'ble High Court.
11 As far as the reliance placed by Ld. Counsel for the defendant on S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (supra) case is concerned, the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the aforesaid judgment discussed the effect of withholding of vital documents relevant to the litigation which amounted playing fraud on the court.
Similarly, Hari Niwas Gupta (supra) case is also not applicable to the facts of the present case which discussed the necessity of disclosing of true facts in the summary proceedings. As per the plaintiff's case all the facts relevant to the fact in issue in the present suit have already been disclosed in the plaint and no document relevant to the present litigation can be said to have been withheld by the plaintiff. Both the aforesaid judgments are accordingly not applicable to the facts of the present case.
Reliance placed by Ld. Counsel for the defendant on Dentsply CS No.44/2014 Page 5/7 India (supra) case is also of no help to the defendant for the same reason.
12 As far as the reliance placed on Utopian Builders (supra) case is concerned wherein it was held that the fact whether the plaintiff was entitled to any interest on the amount of damages or not was a triable issue, suffice it to say that the Utopian Builders (supra) case is clearly distinguishable on facts in the present case. In the present case, the plaintiff has claimed to recover a sum of Rs.10,84,481/- i.e amount of invoices bearing No. UM-271113816 and UM-271113817 both dated 27.11.2013. The plaintiff is also praying for grant of interest @ 24% p.a on the aforesaid amount of Rs.10,84,481/-. In Utopian Builders (supra) case, the plaintiff had included the amount of interest in the suit amount which did not find favour with the Hon'ble High Court and therefore, the defendant was granted leave to defend the suit. However, in the present suit the plaintiff has not included the interest amount in the suit amount of Rs. 10,84,481/-. As per Order 37 Rule 2 (b) CPC, a suit can be filed by the plaintiff to recover a debt or liquidated demand in money payable by the defendant, with or without interest. Further, interest at a reasonable rate can be granted on the suit amount under Section 34 CPC. Reliance placed, therefore, on the Utopian Builders (supra) case is also of no help to the defendant.
13 Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff also placed reliance on M/s Mechelec Engineers & Manufacturers (surpa) case, Lohmann Rausher Gmbh (supra) case, Bharat Forge Ltd (supra) case and M/s Park Side Ltd (supra) case. The case of the plaintiff is squarely covered within the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgments.
CS No.44/2014 Page 6/714 In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in my considered opinion, the defendant has not raised any triable issue which needs adjudication by leading of evidence. The facts disclosed by the defendant in the application under consideration do not indicate that it has substantial defence to raise to the claim of the plaintiff. The liability to pay the sum of Rs.10,84,481/- to the plaintiff has already been categorically admitted by the defendant leaving no scope for leading any evidence for the same. Under these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the application under Order 37 Rule 3(5) CPC of the defendant seeking grant of leave to defend the present suit. The same is accordingly dismissed.
14 In view of the above-discussed facts and circumstances, a valuable right to get the suit decreed has accrued to the plaintiff and the plaintiff has become entitled to a judgment forthwith. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs. The defendant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,84,481/- to the plaintiff forthwith. Though the plaintiff has prayed for grant of interest @ 24% p.a, however, in the absence of any written agreement in this regard, the claim of interest @ 24% p.a appears to be on the higher side. In my considered opinion, reasonable rate of interest @ 9% p.a on the suit amount of Rs.10,84,481/- from the date of filing of the suit till the date of the decree can also be awarded to the plaintiff and is ordered accordingly.
Decree sheet be prepared.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (KULDEEP NARAYAN)
on 04.1.2016. Additional District Judge-05
West Distt,Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi.
CS No.44/2014 Page 7/7