Delhi District Court
M/S Stanley Works (India) Private ... vs M/S Mtandt Ltd on 30 September, 2016
1
IN THE COURT OF Ms. VEENA RANI, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE-IV, NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW
DELHI
CS No:58817/2016
M/s Stanley Works (India) Private Limited
A Private Limited Company
Incorporated under the Companies Act
1956 and having its registered office at
Stanley Works (India) Pvt. Ltd.
C/o Black and Decker India Private Limited,
802-805, 8th Floor, Barakhamba Road,
Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001
Through its Authorized Signatory
Mr. Satish Vinayak Limaye .....Plaintiff.
Versus
M/s MTANDT LTD.
A Limited Company
Incorporated under the Companies Act
1956 and having its registered/Corporate
office at 17/8, West Mada Church Road,
Royapuram, Chennai-600013,
Tamil Nadu ( India) .....Defendant
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs.3,40,533/-
DATE OF INSTITUTION OF SUIT: 28-09-2012
DATE OF FINAL ARGUMENT :30-09-2016
DATE OF FINAL JUDGMENT :30-09-2016
M/s Stanley Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Madras Tools & Tackles Ltd.,
CC No:58817/2016
2
1.Plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendant for the recovery of Rs.3,40,533/- along-with an interest @ 18 p.a. from the filing of the suit till its realization. Plaintiff also prayed for awarding of the cost of suit in his favour. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as under:-
2. It is averred that plaintiff is a registered Private Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and carrying on the business of selling, manufacturing either through itself or under contract manufacturing agreements and marketing of industrial automotive repairs tools, other tools and electronic products, small domestic household appliances for both the consumer and industrial segments under the name and style M/s Stanley Works ( India) Pvt. Ltd., having its registered office at C/o Black and Decker India Private Limited, 802-
805, 8th Floor, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi- 110001.
3. That the defendant is limited company, carrying on the business under the name and style Madras Tools & Tackles Limited, selling the plaintiff's products as a dealer. The plaintiff has appointed the defendant as a dealer for the sale of their products and as such the defendant is having business relations with the plaintiff since 2008. The plaintiff has supplied material and raised appropriate tax invoices. The defendant has placed various orders for the plaintiff's products from time to time and plaintiff has supplied those products by raising the tax invoices and plaintiff is maintaining a running account of the defendant.
4. It is averred that as per the running account maintained by the plaintiff company an amount of Rs.3,13,195/- is outstanding against the M/s Stanley Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Madras Tools & Tackles Ltd., CC No:58817/2016 3 defendant. Plaintiff has requested the defendant to clear the outstanding amount but defendant avoided the same despite the notice dated 22-03- 2012. It is stated that total amount of dues against the defendant company is Rs.2,13,195/- outstanding amount plus Rs.27338/- interest amount from notice date till 15-09-2012, thus a total amount of Rs.3,40,533/- is outstanding and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff.
5. The cause of a action stated to have accrued firstly on 9-1-2008 when the plaintiff supplied the goods to the defendant and on subsequently when the defendant placed order with the plaintiff and plaintiff supplied the goods to the defendant company. It further stated to have accrued on 20-04-2012 when notice dated 19-04-2012 was issued to the defendant.
6. This court has the jurisdiction to try the present suit as plaintiff is stated to have carrying out his business at Delhi and transactions between the parties took placed at Delhi.
7. The valuation of the suit for the purposes of pecuniary jurisdiction is done at Rs.3,40,533/- and court fees of Rs.5715/- affixed on it.
8. In their written statement it is stated by the defendant that the entries in the alleged running account allegedly recorded by the plaintiff in its alleged ordinary course of business and the alleged outstanding amount of Rs.3,13,195/- as on 29-3-2011 as claimed by the plaintiff are stoutly disputed and vehemently denied being wrong and distorted. It is stated that the plaintiff while calculating the alleged figure of outstanding has not deliberately and fraudulently adjusted and taken into account the payment due by the plaintiff to the defendant on account of M/s Stanley Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Madras Tools & Tackles Ltd., CC No:58817/2016 4 the defected material/products supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant and rejected by the defendant, and the amount which was directly collected by the plaintiff from the customers to which the products/materials have been supplied by the defendant against its tax invoices, besides the amount/compensation on account of non supply of "C Form" by the customers at the instance of plaintiff, despite the repeated requests and reminders of the defendant, for which the plaintiff is liable to the defendant. It is further stated that total liability of the plaintiff to the defendnt is Rs.59,46,258/-. It is stated that defendant does not have any liability towards the plaintiff, therefore, the question of any payment to the plaintiff does not arise. It is further submitted by the defendant that their officials have made several requests to the plaintiff for the reconciliation of their respective accounts but the plaintiff is deliberately avoiding to reconcile the accounts as the plaintiff fully knows about its liability towards defendant and does not want to clear the legitimate dues of the defendant. Defendant prayed for the dismissal of the present suit with exemplary costs.
9. Plaintiff filed replication and reiterated the contents of the plaint and denied the averments made by the defendant in the written statement. It is stated that it is not true that defendant does not have any legitimate liability towards the plaintiff or that plaintiff owes a considerable amount of Rs.59,46,258/- to the defendant or that the present suit is liable to be dismissed with cost.
10. From the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed for the trial of the present suit:-
(i). Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of the suit amount ?
M/s Stanley Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Madras Tools & Tackles Ltd., CC No:58817/2016 5
(ii) Relief.
11. In order to prove his case the plaintiff company has filed the evidenciary affidavit of Sh. Satish Vinayak Limaye, AR of the plaintiff company and examined him as PW1. His evidenciary affidavit is Ex.PW1/A bearing his signature at point A and B. In his evidenciary affidavit PW1 has reaffirmed the averments of the plaint. The evidenciary affidavit of PW1 as tendered and part chief examination of PW1 was recorded on 24-10- 2013 and further examination in chief of PW1 was deferred for want of documents.
Thereafter, despite repeated opportunities, plaintiff has failed to conclude the remaining examination-in-chief of PW1, therefore, the PE was closed vide order dated 18-10-2016.
Ld. Counsel for the defendant has closed the defence evidence (DE) on 26-11-2014, on the ground that plaintiff has failed to led PE in the present case.
Thereafter, vide order dated 11-08-2015, on the application of the plaintiff u/o 18 rule 17 CPC, an opportunity was granted to the plaintiff for PE subject to cost of Rs.6000/- to be paid to the defendant, for 07- 09-2015. On 07-09-2015 again one more opportunity was granted to the plaintiff to conclude the PE and matter was adjourned for PE on 09-02- 2016. On 02-09-2016, no PW was present, therefore, the PE was closed and case was again fixed for DE for 18-03-2016. On 18-03-2016 ld. Counsel for the defendant closed DE and matter was listed for final argument.
12. Thereafter, none has appeared on behalf of the plaintiff to address final argument despite the service of court notice.
13. I have heard the final argument on behalf of defendant and perused the M/s Stanley Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Madras Tools & Tackles Ltd., CC No:58817/2016 6 record. My findings on the issues are as under:-
FINDINGS ON ISSUES
(i). Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of the suit amount ?
Onus to prove this case was upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed the evidenciary affidavit of PW1 in support of his case. However, despite repeated opportunities the plaintiff has failed to conclude the evidence of PW1, hence, the part evidence of the plaintiff can not be looked into. Thus the plaintiff has failed to discharge the onus to prove this issue and has failed to prove his case. Hence, this issue is decided against the plaintiff and I hold that the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree for recovery of the suit amount.
14. Relief In view of my finding on the issue no:1 and the fact that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case in accordance with law, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court.
(VEENA RANI) Additional District Judge-IV, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi/30-09-2016 M/s Stanley Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Madras Tools & Tackles Ltd., CC No:58817/2016 7 IN THE COURT OF Ms. VEENA RANI, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-IV, NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI CS No:58817/2016 M/s Stanley Works (India) Private Limited Vs. M/s MTANDT LTD.
30.09.2016
Present: None for plaintiff.
Sh. Gaurav Garg, Counsel for defendant.
Vide my separate judgment, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court.
( VEENA RANI ) Additional District Judge-04 PHC, New Delhi/30.09.2016 M/s Stanley Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Madras Tools & Tackles Ltd., CC No:58817/2016