Delhi District Court
Atul Sekhri vs Mukesh Jain on 9 August, 2023
-:: 1 ::- Date: 09.08.2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVALI BANSAL
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-03 (NORTH)
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No.DLNT01-012405-2017
CS No. 1004/2017
In the matter of :-
Atul Sekhri
Prop. M/s. Sudarshan International,
Having its Office at 33-34,
UB Jawahar Nagar, Behind MC Donalds,
Delhi-110007.
..........Plaintiff
Versus
Mukesh Jain
S/o Sh. Nanu Ram Jain
Proprietor of M/s. Jain Telecom Center,
B-7/12, Sector-11, Rohini,
Delhi-110085 ......Defendant
Date of Institution : 15.11.2017
Date of Final Arguments : 08.08.2023
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 09.08.2023
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.4,33,820/- (RUPEES FOUR LAKHS
THIRTY THREE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED TWENTY ONLY)
ALONG WITH INTEREST @ 18% PER ANNUM
EX-PARTE JUDGMENT
1.Vide this judgment, I shall dispose off the present suit for recovery of Rs. 4,33,820/- along with interest @ 18% per annum.
CS No.1004/2017 Atul Sekhri Vs. Mukesh Jain Page: 1 of 5
-:: 1 ::- Date: 09.08.2023
2. The brief facts of the case as stated by the plaintiff in the plaint are:
i. It is stated that Mr. Atul Sekhri is the proprietor of M/s. Sudarshan International having engaged in the business of mobile phone based money transfer, financing and micro-financing service etc. under the name and style of M/s. Sudarshan International. It is further stated that the defendant is proprietor of M/s. Jain Telecom Centre.
ii. It is stated by the plaintiff that defendant had approached plaintiff for the supply of M-Pesa, EVD etc. It is stated that defendant placed orders for the supply of said goods as per the details in the invoice that were raised by the Plaintiff. It is further stated that the goods as per the orders placed were duly supplied to the Defendant and the Plaintiff raised the invoices time to time.
iii. It is stated that the defendant issued Cheques bearing No.351398 and 351399 both dated 11.05.2017 for a sum of Rs.1,99,000/- each in order to discharge the legally enforceable debt and liability towards the plaintiff. It is further stated by the plaintiff that when the plaintiff had presented the said cheques to his banker, the same were returned unpaid/dishonored with the remarks "Funds insufficient" vide return memos dated 20.05.2017 and 22.05.2017.
iv. It is stated that despite repeated requests of the plaintiff, defendant failed to clear the aforesaid outstanding amount. Then, the Plaintiff through its counsel addressed a notice dated 28.05.2017 upon the defendant through Speed Post, calling upon defendant to pay the entire outstanding amount to the plaintiff. The same had been duly served upon the defendant but to no avail.
CS No.1004/2017 Atul Sekhri Vs. Mukesh Jain Page: 1 of 5
-:: 2 ::- Date: 09.08.2023
v. It is stated by the plaintiff that thereafter, the defendant approached the plaintiff and requested that he is suffering from financial problems and issued certain cheques in discharge of his part liability. However, upon presentation, the same were again returned unpaid/dishonored vide return memos dated 09.08.2017 with the remarks "Funds Insufficient".
vi. It is stated by the plaintiff that he again issued legal notice dated 20.08.2017 to the defendant through his counsel which had been duly served upon the defendant but the defendant has neither replied to the said notice nor made the payment.
vii. It is stated by the plaintiff that he has been maintaining the running account in defendant's name for the supplies made by the Plaintiff's Company under various invoices and the payments thereof made by the defendant. It is stated that as per the invoices raised in respect of supplies made to the defendant, an amount [of Rs. 3,98,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Ninety Eight Thousand Only) along with interest @ 18% per annum i.e. Rs.35,820/- from the date of cheques to the date of filing of the present case, remains due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff.
3. It is prayed by the plaintiff that a decree of Rs.4,33,820/- be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant along with the interest pendente-lite and future @ 18% per annum from the date of the institution of the suit till its realization.
CS No.1004/2017 Atul Sekhri Vs. Mukesh Jain Page: 2 of 5
-:: 3 ::- Date: 09.08.2023
4. The defendant did not appear before this court despite opportunity and therefore, the defendant was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 24.01.2023.
5. Plaintiff in order to prove his case has examined the witness:
PW-1 is plaintiff/Sh. Atul Sekhri, Proprietor of M/s. Sudarshan International R/o 33-34, UB Jawahar Nagar, Behind McDonalds, Delhi. He tendered his affidavit in evidence Ex. PW1/A, same bears his signature at point A and B. He relied upon the following documents in his affidavit of evidence:-
i. Certified copy of proof acknowledgement of GST application for enrollment is Ex.PW1/1.
ii. Certified copy of Invoices acknowledged by defendant are collectively Ex.PW1/2(Colly.) iii. Certified copy of five cheques with their and returning memos are collectively Ex.PW1/3 (Colly.).
iv. Certified copy of dishonored cheque along with returning memo are collectively Ex.PW1/4.
v. Certified copy of dishonored cheque along with returning memo are collectively Ex.PW1/5.
vi. Certified copy of legal notice with postal receipt are collectively Ex.PW1/6 (Colly.).
vii. Certified copy of legal notice sent by plaintiff to defendant is Ex.PW1/7.
viii.Certified copy of postal receipts are collectively Ex.PW1/8.
CS No.1004/2017 Atul Sekhri Vs. Mukesh Jain Page: 3 of 5
-:: 4 ::- Date: 09.08.2023
ix. Certified copy of tracking report of registered as well as speed post are collectively Ex.PW1/9 (colly.). x. Certified copy of statement of account of defendant maintained by plaintiff is Ex.Ex.PW1/10.
xi. The defendant has also relied upon affidavit u/s 65B of Evidence Act Ex.PW1/B in respect of statement of accounts/ledger which has already been filed with the plaint and bearing his signatures at points A & B.
6. After perusing the testimony of PW1 and the exhibits PW1/1 to PW1/10, the plaintiff is able to discharge the burden of proof on balance of probabilities. The defendant has not come forward to defend himself. Since the defendant in the present suit is ex-parte and the testimony of plaintiff goes uncontroverted and unrebutted and plaintiff has been able to prove its case successfully. In the absence of defence, the averments made in the plaint are deemed to be admitted.
RELIEF The suit of the plaintiff is decreed for Rs. 4,33,820/- along with the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the suit till actual realization.
No order as to cost.
Digitally signed Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. SHIVALI by SHIVALI BANSAL File be consigned to record room. BANSAL Date: 2023.08.09 16:20:21 +0530 Announced in open Shivali Bansal Court on 09.08.2023 Additional District Judge-03 North District, Rohini Courts Delhi CS No.1004/2017 Atul Sekhri Vs. Mukesh Jain Page: 4 of 5