Bangalore District Court
M/S Mangalore Chemicals And ... vs Jai Bhavani Fertilizers on 25 October, 2024
KABC170032112022
IN THE COURT OF LXXXVII ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH.88)
Present: Smt. Roopa K.N., B.Sc., LL.B.,
LXXXVII Addl.City Civil &
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Dated: 25th day of October 2024
Com.O.S. No.1678/2022
PLAINTIFF : M/s.Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers
Limited
A Company incorporated under
Companies Act, 1956 having its registered,
Level 11, UB Towers, UB City, 24 Vittal Mallya
Road, Bengaluru - 560 001
Rep by Authorized Signatory Mr.Prasanna K P
-Vs-
DEFENDANTS : 1 Jai Bhavani Fertilizers,
Gandhi Gunj,
Bidar 585403
2 Shivshankar Pundalikarao Ghuma,
Proprietor,
Jai Bhavani Fertilizers,
Plot No.01, CMC No.8-9-162/1 (N),
Gullar Haveli, Jail Colony,
Bidar - 584101
/2/
Com.O.S.No.1678/2022
Date of Institution of the suit 18.11.2022
Nature of the suit (suit on Transactions of merchants,
pronote, suit for declaration & financiers, traders relating
Possession, Suit for injunction mercantile documents
etc.) (enforce, interpret)
Date of commencement of 20.06.2023
recording of evidence
Date on which judgment was 25.10.2024
pronounced
Total Duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
01 11 07
(ROOPA K.N.),
LXXXVII ACC & SJ (CCH-88),
(Commercial Court)
Bengaluru.
:JUDGMENT:
This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of Rs.37,80,058.44 with interest at the rate of 14% p.a. and also future interest till the date of realization.
/3/ Com.O.S.No.1678/2022
2. It is the case of the plaintiff that, defendant is a proprietor and a fertilizer dealer engaged in the business of selling products manufactured by the plaintiff company. Second defendant is the proprietor of defendant No.1. Plaintiff company supplied various products to the defendants and raised invoices. Defendants received products supplied by the plaintiff by affixing their signatures confirming delivery of the goods but, however defendants were irregular in making signature of challans. Since defendant is due of Rs.23,60,963/- on the invoices raised and no payment was made, plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant on 23.05.2022. Inspite of this no payment was made by the defendant and this forced the plaintiff to file the present suit.
3. After service of summons defendant Nos.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and filed written statement /4/ Com.O.S.No.1678/2022 wherein they have admitted the suit transaction and also admitted plaintiff supplied goods shown in Sl.No.1 to 22 in para 4 of written statement worth Rs.15,73,728/- and defendants also admitted that, they have received only this goods shown in Sl.No.1 to 22 and also admitted the invoices raised by the plaintiff. According to defendants plaintiff has not at all supplied the products mentioned in Sl.No.8, 9, 11, 12, 16 and 17 as shown in para 5 of written statement worth Rs.7,32,263/- and hence, they have not acknowledged any invoices and knowing fully well this fact plaintiff has filed this false suit. According to defendants they have already paid invoice bill amount of Rs.17,00,000/- to the plaintiff company with respect to the delivered goods and the balance payable is Rs.8,41,465.23. Defendant also denied the other averments of the plaint and sought for dismissal of the suit.
/5/ Com.O.S.No.1678/2022
4. On the basis of the pleadings, this Court has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the defendants are liable to pay a sum of INR 37,80,058.44 to the plaintiff?
2. Whether the defendants prove that they have already made payment of Rs.17,00,000/- in respect of invoices?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants are liable to interest @ 14% per annum from 01.12.2022 till payment?
4. What order or decree?
5. My findings on the above Issues are as under:
Issue Nos.1 and 3: In the "Affirmative"
Issue No.2 : In the "Negative"
Issue No.4 : As per final order for the
following;
:REASONS:
6. ISSUE NOS.1 to 3:- As all these points are inter connected, they have been taken-up together for common discussion and to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.
/6/ Com.O.S.No.1678/2022 In order to prove these issues authorized signatory of plaintiff company one Prasanna K.P. examined as P.W.1 who filed his affidavit in lieu of chief examination and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.20. On the other hand, 2 nd defendant Shivashankar examined himself as D.W.1 but, no documents were marked on his behalf.
7. Heard the counsel for plaintiff. Despite giving sufficient opportunities counsel for defendant did not chosen to argue on merits. The learned counsel for plaintiff re-iterated the averments of plaint in his arguments and drawn the attention of this court to the invoices marked as Ex.P.3, 4 to 13 and Ex.P.7 which is a board resolution, Ex.P.14 the confirmation challan and also admission made by the defendant in para 4 of written statement. According to plaintiff defendant has not produced any document to show that, he has not received any projects as shown in para 5 of his written statement and hence, plaintiff sought /7/ Com.O.S.No.1678/2022 for decree of the suit.
8. If we carefully peruse the oral and documentary evidence of plaintiff Ex.P.1 to P.5 are the invoices which are totally 66 in number, Ex.P.6 is a statement of account, Ex.P.8 to 13 are GST invoices, Ex.P.14 is a confirmation balance as on 30.09.2019, Ex.P.15 is a legal notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendant which returned unserved as per Ex.P.19. P.W.1 has been cross-examined by learned counsel for defendant wherein plaintiff deposed that, he has supplied fertilizers in respect of which they raised invoices. According to him defendant used to place purchase order through phone and though there was no purchase order some times plaintiff used to take purchase orders orally from the defendant and was supplying goods. Further, P.W.1 deposed that, in GST invoices, they have mentioned the rate of interest at 14% has to be paid. He denied that, plaintiff has not supplied goods worth /8/ Com.O.S.No.1678/2022 Rs.7,32,263.26 and defendant is only liable to pay Rs.8,41,465.23. According to P.W.1 every 6 months they used to take confirmation of accounts marked as Ex.P.14. He admitted that, he has not filed balance sheet pertaining to business between plaintiff and defendant. On the other hand, D.W.1 was cross-examined by learned counsel for plaintiff wherein he admitted that, from 2001 he is running Jai Bhavani fertilizers along with his son and from last 30 yers D.W.1 was purchasing fertilizers from plaintiff. According to him he was not placing Purchase Orders through phone but, whenever plaintiff used to visit his shop he used to request the plaintiff as to what are all the items he required and by purchasing the same he used to resale the same to farmers. He is not aware who is Balkeshwara fertilizers. He denied that, whatever the goods purchased by the plaintiff were sold to this balakeshwara fertilizers who is a sub-dealer. D.W.1 also /9/ Com.O.S.No.1678/2022 admitted that, he used to purchase goods from plaintiff on credit basis and his son Sathish used to be with him in his shop. He admitted that, he has not paid income tax, according to him he run the business of Jai Bhavani Fertilizers till 2015 and he orally requested the plaintiff not to supply any goods as he has closed the business. He also admitted that, whenever plaintiff used to supply goods he used to issue delivery challan. He denied that, he used to sign for balance confirmation letter. According to him when he closed the business in 2015 his bank account was also closed and he paid Rs.17,00,000/- to the plaintiff partly through RTGS and remaining through D.D. He admitted that, he cannot produce account statement to prove this fact. He also admitted that, as on today he has not paid the plaintiff admitted amount of Rs.8,41,465.23 he denied that, he is liable to pay suit claim amount to the plaintiff.
/10/ Com.O.S.No.1678/2022
9. On careful perusal of Ex.P.1, P.5 same are the invoices raised by the plaintiff and it can be seen that, on each invoices name of defendant is shown as daily customer consignee and it is shown that goods have been duly delivered to Jai Bhavani Fertilizers, Fertilizer dealer, Bidar, Karnataka. In GST invoice marked as Ex.P.5(page No.36 to 65) in the left bottom we can see the seal and signature of defendant acknowledging receipt of goods supplied under those invoices. Ex.P.6 is a document i.e., bank statement of plaintiff which is admitted by the plaintiff. Similarly, Ex.P.8 to 13 are the GST invoices which do not consists the seal and signature of the defendant and these are disputed documents. According to defendant these are the invoices raised by the plaintiff after closure of his business in 2015 and these invoices were raised by the plaintiff knowing fully well that, they have not supplied any goods and these invoices are created for the /11/ Com.O.S.No.1678/2022 purpose of this suit. Ex.P.15 is a legal notice issued to defendant to his address at Bidar. If we peruse the address of defendants shown in invoices, the said address and the address to which legal notice Ex.P.15, 18 and 19 were sent are the one and the same and these legal notices returned with a shara party refused which is marked as Ex.P.19. If these facts are perused, defendants though residing in the same address deliberately did not chosen to receive the legal notice. Apart from this, it is the contention of the defendant that, he closed his business in 2015 itself and he orally intimated the plaintiff about the closure of his business but, even after that, plaintiff raised invoices. If we peruse the cross-examination of D.W.1 the only contention of the defendant is that, he has received goods shown in Sl.No.1 to 22 of his written statement worth Rs.15,73,728/- and he has not received goods pertaining to invoices shown in para 5 of his written statement. He also admitted that, /12/ Com.O.S.No.1678/2022 he is liable to pay the plaintiff Rs.8,41,465/- but, same has not been paid due to loss in business. Defendnat has not produced any document to show that, in 2015 itself he closed his business and intimated the plaintiff about the closure. Defendant did not explained to the court as to what prevented him from communicating the plaintiff in writing intimating the plaintiff about closure of the business and requesting them not to supply any goods to their Bidar address. Even defendant has not produced any document to show that, he has already paid Rs.17,00,000/- to the plaintiff. Though defendant has deposed that, he has paid Rs.17,00,000/- to the plaintiff by RTGS and partly through D.D. He has not produced any bank document or bank statement. The reason given by the defendant for not producing those documents is that, since his account is closed he cannot produce the account statement. It is very difficult to believe the version of /13/ Com.O.S.No.1678/2022 defendant as defendant could have produced his passbook bills to prove that, he has paid Rs.17,00,000/- to the plaintiff. Even he has not produced any document to show that, he is an income tax assessee. Though defendant now took a contention that, he has not received any projects shown in para 5 of the written statement worth Rs.7,32,263/-, he never issued legal notice to the plaintiff either demanding them to supply those goods or clarifying the plaintiff the fact that, defendant has closed his business in 2015 itself. Ex.P.6 is the bank statement which shows the transaction of plaintiff with the defendant even in 2018. All these facts clearly goes to show that, in order to over come his liability to pay the suit claim amount defendant is making a false allegation against the plaintiff that, plaintiff did not supplied goods shown in para 5 of the written statement. In view of these facts, I hold plaintiff by way of oral and documentary evidence has proved that, /14/ Com.O.S.No.1678/2022 defendant is liable to pay the suit claim amount. Apart from this, if we peruse the invoice Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 there is a contractual agreement wherein defendant was well informed under these invoices that, plaintiff company reserves right to charge interest at 14% p.a. on outstanding dues. In view of this, I hold plaintiff is entitled for interest at the rate of 14% p.a. on suit claim amount. Accordingly, I answer issue No.1 and 3 in the "Affirmative" and Issue No.2 in the "Negative".
10. Issue No.4 :- For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Suit of the Plaintiff is hereby decreed with costs.
The Defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff Rs.37,80,058.44 with interest at the rate of 14% p.a. from the date when the amount became due till the date of realization.
/15/ Com.O.S.No.1678/2022 Draw decree accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 25th day of October, 2024.
(ROOPA K.N.) LXXXVII ACC & SJ (CCH-88) (Commercial Court) Bengaluru ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF :
PW-1 Sri.Prasanna K.P. LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF Annexure B GST Invoice dtd:23.11.2017 Ex.P.1 Admitted 21.04.2023 (Page 10 to 16) Ex.P.2 Annexure B GST Invoice dtd:30.05.2018 Ex.P.3 Annexure B GST Invoice dtd:20.06.2018 Annexure B GST Invoice dtd:18.07.2018 Ex.P.4 (Page 30 to 35) Annexure C GST Invoice dtd:23.11.2017 Ex.P.5 (Page 36 to 66) Ex.P.6 Annexure E Statement of Account /16/ Com.O.S.No.1678/2022 dtd:01.03.2017 to 08.03.2022 (Page 68) Ex.P.6(a) Account Statement (in page No.69 to 75) Ex.P.1(a) to (f) GST Invoice (Page 11 to 16) Ex.P.7 Board resolution Ex.P.8 to GST Invoices Ex.P.13 Confirmation of balance as on Ex.P.14 30.09.2019 Ex.P.15 Office copy of the legal notice Ex.P.16 & Postal receipts Ex.P.17 Ex.P.18 & Unserved RPAD Covers Ex.P.19 Ex.P.18(a) & Notice under RPAD Cover Ex.P.19(a) Ex.P.20 PIM Report LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS DW1 Sri.Shivashankar Pundalik Rao Gumma LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS
- Nil -
LXXXVII ACC & SJ (CCH-88), (Commercial Court) Bengaluru.