Delhi High Court
M/S Diamond Products Ltd. vs Footmart Retail India Ltd. on 7 August, 2015
Author: A.K. Pathak
Bench: A.K. Pathak
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 820/2013
Decided on 7th August, 2015
M/S DIAMOND PRODUCTS LTD ..... Plaintiff
Through Ms. Sumedha Dua, Advocate
versus
FOOTMART RETAIL INDIA LTD ..... Defendant
Through None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK
A.K. PATHAK, J. (ORAL)
1. Plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant for recovery of `38,12,595/- along with pendente lite and future interest @12% p.a. and costs.
2. Plaintiff has alleged in the plaint that plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, involved in the business of manufacturing and trading of footwears. Vide Board Resolution dated 24 th April, 2013, Mr. Sandeep Kumar Jain, authorized representative of the plaintiff company has been authorized to file the suit. Pursuant to the orders placed by the defendant at Delhi, plaintiff supplied various types of CS(OS) 820/2013 Page 1 of 4 footwears through invoices. Defendant used to make part payments from time to time. Running ledger account of defendant was maintained by the plaintiff in its books in normal course of business. Last part payment of `4,00,000/- was made by the defendant on 5th May, 2010. A sum of `26,48,343/- still remained due and outstanding against the defendant which it failed to clear. The defendant was also liable to pay interest @12% p.a. amounting to `11,64,252/- as on the date of filing of the suit i.e. 25th April, 2013. Thus, the defendant was liable to pay a sum of `38,12,595/-. Since the amount was not paid, hence the suit.
3. Despite service, defendant did not appear in Court, accordingly, defendant was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 2nd September, 2014.
4. Plaintiff has led ex-parte evidence. Mr. Sandeep Kumar Jain has stepped in the witness box as PW-1. He has tendered his affidavit Ex-PW- 1/A in his evidence and has proved documents placed on record.
5. I have perused the deposition of PW-1 as contained in his affidavit Ex. PW-1/A, and find that he has corroborated the averments made in the plaint, which have been reproduced hereinabove. He has categorically CS(OS) 820/2013 Page 2 of 4 deposed that the plaintiff had supplied various types of footwears to defendant on regular basis through invoices. He also deposed that defendant had been making part payment from time to time. He further deposed that a running ledger account of the defendant in the books of the plaintiff was maintained in normal course of the business. He has also deposed that the defendant made last part payment of`4,00,000/- on 5th May, 2010. He further deposed that `26,48,343/- was still due and outstanding. He further deposed that the defendant was liable to pay interest @ 12% amounting to `11,64,252/- as on 25th April, 2013. He also deposed that a total sum of `38,12,595/- was outstanding against the defendant. He has proved several documents in support of his above contention. True copy of running ledger account of the defendant was proved as Ex.PW-1/1. Interest calculation sheet was proved as Ex.PW-1/2. Board Resolution dated 24th April, 2013 was proved as ExPW-1/3. Invoices along with the consignment notes were proved as Ex. PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/24.
6. In my view, from the testimony of PW-1 compelled with the documents placed and proved on record, the plaintiff has succeeded in proving that a sum of `38,12,595/- including interest is due and outstanding against the defendant towards the goods supplied. I am also of the view that CS(OS) 820/2013 Page 3 of 4 defendant is liable to pay interest, present being commercial transaction and also because plaintiff has been deprived of its rightful dues inasmuch as defendant has reaped the benefit of the withheld amount for its own business purposes, Rate of interest as envisaged in the invoices is 24% p.a., however, the plaintiff has claimed interest @ 12% p.a. which is lesser and I find the same just and proper rate of interest.
7. Accordingly, I pass a decree in the sum of `38,12,595/- in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant along with pendent-lite and future interest @ 12% p.a. as also the costs of proceedings. Decree sheet be drawn.
A.K. PATHAK, J AUGUST 07, 2015 rs CS(OS) 820/2013 Page 4 of 4