Delhi District Court
Bindal Smelting Pvt. Ltd. Thr. Its A.R. ... vs Mr. Sumit Bansal, Proprietor Of Solar 4 ... on 1 August, 2024
DLCT010031432022
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL
COURT)-01,
CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED BY: MR. SANJEEV KUMAR AGGARWAL
IN THE MATTER OF:
CS (COMM) NO. 621/22
M/s Bindal Smelting Pvt. Ltd.
Through its AR Ms. Komal Gupta
At 987, 1st Floor, Hardhian Singh Road,
Karol Bagh, Delhi-110015
Mobile No. : 9899038380
...PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
Mr. Sumit Bansal
Proprietor of M/s Solar 4 Max.Com
R/o C-12/66, Yamuna Vihar,
Bhajan Pura, Delhi-110053
Mobile No. : 8586002365
.... DEFENDANT
Date of Institution : 17.02.2022
Date of reserving judgment : 11.07.2024
Date of Judgment : 01.08.2024
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the present suit for recovery of ₹13,10,009/- filed by the plaintiff against the defendant alongwith pendentelite and future interest.
2. Brief facts as stated by the plaintiff in the plaint are that the CS (Comm.) No. 621/22 Page No. 1 of 5 plaintiff is a company incorporated under The Companies Act and the defendant is a proprietorship concern and Sh. Sumit Bansal is its proprietor. It has been stated that earlier on 08.03.2017 the defendant approached the plaintiff and transferred an amount of Rs. 4,88,000/- against an advance payment but the deal was not finalized due to big variation in the quotes of both the parties and later on being genuine person the plaintiff returned the said amount of Rs. 4,88,000/- to the defendant on 18.04.2017 but again in the month of April-May, 2017 the defendant approached the plaintiff for the material and the plaintiff due to previous bonafide transaction fixed the deal with the defendant and defendant purchased the material i.e. LEAD Ingots, Red Lead & Lead Oxide of Rs. 8,94,206/- from the plaintiff vide invoice bearing no. 42 dated 03.05.2017, which were duly delivered at the factory of defendant at E-21, Sector A- 5/6, UPSIDC Industrial Area, Tronica City, Loni, Ghaziabad, U.P. but the defendant failed to make the payment within the stipulated time of 30 days, hence, defendant is liable to pay interest @18% p.a. on the aforesaid amount from 01.06.2017 till the date of realization. It has been further stated that plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 24.01.2020 demanding the aforementioned amount with interest but defendant did not pay the same. Further, plaintiff also filed an application for pre-litigation mediation but the defendant did not appear, hence, the mediation failed and non-starter report issued. Hence, the present suit.
3. Summons of the suit were sent to the defendant but despite service of defendant on 05.05.2022 through his wife namely Ms. Shalini Bansal, defendant did not appear, hence, defendant was CS (Comm.) No. 621/22 Page No. 2 of 5 proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 29.07.2024.
4. Since the defendant was proceeded ex-parte, no issues were framed and case was fixed for ex-parte PE.
5. In order to prove its case, the plaintiff has examined two witnesses i.e. its AR Ms. Komal Gupta as PW1, who tendered her evidence way of affidavits Ex.PW1/A & Ex. PW1/B, and also Sh. Vinod Kumar Meena, Sr. Assistant, GST Department as PW2.
6. Ex-parte final arguments were heard from Sh. Amit Tewari, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
7. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has argued that plaintiff through the testimony of PW1 and documents has proved its case that plaintiff supplied goods to defendant and defendant defaulted in payment of goods and thus defendant is liable to pay suit amount alongwith interest @ 18% p.a..
8. I have considered the arguments and have gone through the record.
9. Despite the fact that defendant proceeded ex-parte, the onus is upon the plaintiff to prove that plaintiff has supplied goods to the defendant and defendant has not paid full amount of the goods supplied. As stated above, in order to prove its case, plaintiff has examined its AR Ms. Komal Gupta, who led her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A & Ex. PW1/B and she almost repeated the same contents as stated in the plaint, therefore, same are not repeated. She has also proved the following documents :-
1. Board Resolution as Ex. PW1/1
2. Invoice no. 42 dated 03.05.2017 as Ex. PW1/2A
3. Ledger account statement as Ex. PW1/2B CS (Comm.) No. 621/22 Page No. 3 of 5
4. Office copy of legal notice dated 24.01.2020 as Ex. PW1/3, postal receipts as Ex. PW1/4 and tracking report as Ex. PW1/5.
5. Non-starter report as Ex. PW1/6
6. Certificates u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act dt. 15.02.2023 & 03.05.2024 as Ex. PW1/7 & Ex. PW1/8 respectively.
10. Since none has appeared on behalf of defendant to cross examine PW1, therefore, the testimony of PW1 is remained re- mained unchallenged, uncontroverted and unrebutted. There is no ground to dis-believe the said testimony. Further, plaintiff has also examined Sh. Vinod Kumar Meena, Sr. Assistant, GST De- partment, who has proved the GSTR filed by the plaintiff before GST Department for assessment year 2017-18 for the period end- ing on 31.05.2017 as Ex. PW2/1, list of sales made for assess- ment year a2017-18 for tax period ending on 31.05.2017 as Ex. PW2/2 and acknowledgment of e-return Form-1 of CST for as- sessment year 2017-18 as Ex. PW2/3. From perusal of document Ex. PW2/2 it is proved that plaintiff has supplied the goods to the defendant through invoice no. 42/17-18 for a sum of Rs. 8,94,206/-. Hence, I held that plaintiff has been able to prove its case that plaintiff has supplied the material i.e. LEAD Ingots, Red Lead & Lead Oxide of Rs. 8,94,206/- to the defendant vide invoice bearing no. 42 dated 03.05.2017 but the defendant did not pay amount of the said goods. The suit has been filed on 17.02.2022. Hence, same is filed within the period of limitation. There is no other legal impediment why plaintiff should not be entitle to decree, therefore, considering all the facts and circum- stances, I held that plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 8,94,206/- from the defendant. Further, the plaintiff has claimed CS (Comm.) No. 621/22 Page No. 4 of 5 interest @18% p.a. From the invoice Ex. PW1/2A it is stipulated in terms & conditions that interest @ 18% p.a. will be charged if not paid on presentation. Hence, in the invoice Ex. PW1/2A it is not specified the interest will be charged from which particular date. The plaintiff has not proved any communication except the legal notice Ex. PW1/3, therefore, in my view, plaintiff is not entitled in- terest @18% p.a. from the date of bill as claimed by the plaintiff but it will be entitled the interest @18% p.a. on the said amount of Rs. 8,94,206/- from the date of legal notice dt. 24.01.2020 Ex. PW1/3 till the date of filing of the suit and thereafter, plaintiff will also be entitled to pendent-lite and future interest @ 12% p.a. on the said amount from the date of filing of suit till the date of decree and thereafter till its realization.
Relief
11. In view of above, I pass a decree for recovery of a sum of Rs. 8,94,206/- [Rupees Eight Lakh Ninety Four Thousand and Two Hundred Six only] in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant alongwith simple interest @18% per annum on the aforesaid amount from the date of 24.01.2020 till the date of filing of the suit and thereafter, plaintiff will also be entitled to pendent- lite and future interest @12% p.a. on aforesaid amount from the date of filing of suit till the date of decree and thereafter till its realization. Plaintiff will be entitled to proportionate costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed by Pronounced in open Court SANJEEV SANJEEV KUMAR KUMAR AGGARWAL on 01.08.2024 AGGARWAL Date: 2024.08.01 17:17:42 +0530 (Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. CS (Comm.) No. 621/22 Page No. 5 of 5