Delhi District Court
This Is A Suit Filed By The vs Mrinal Kanti Sharma Page 1 Of 9 on 31 January, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK WASON: ADJ-02: NORTH DISTRICT:
ROHINI COURTS: NEW DELHI
CS No. 804/17
In the matter of :-
M/s. Minda Nexgentech Ltd.
37-A, Rajasthan Udyog Nagar,
G.T. Karnal Road, Delhi-110033.
......Plaintif
VERSUS
Mrinal Kanti Sharma
Proprietor M/s. Hark International,
34/1, Central Road, Anandapuri,
Barrackpore, Kolkata,
West Bengal-700122.
......Defendant
Date of institution : 20.03.2014
Reserved for Judgment : 27.01.2018
Date of decision : 31.01.2018
Suit for Recovery of Rs. 3,40,832.77/- aongwith pendentelite
and future interest.
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of Rs.3,40,832.77/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Forty Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Two and Seventy Seven paise only) alongwith pendentelite and future interest @24% per annum till realization and award the cost of present proceedings in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
CS no.804/17 M/s Minda Nexgentech Ltd. Vs. Mrinal Kanti Sharma Page 1 of 92. Facts as stated in the plaint are that the plaintiff is a company engaged inter-alia in the manufacturing, sale and installation of various equipments viz Solar Light with SPV Module, LED Light, Solar Rooftop Plant with or without battery bank and other solar and non-solar products. It is further stated in the plaint that the present suit has been filed through Sh. Arun Kumar Malik, who is authorized vide Resolution of Board of Directors dated 16.11.2013.
3. It is further stated in the plaint that defendant during the course of business approached the plaintiff and placed orders of various goods viz. Solar Panel-40W 21 VOC, ISC 2.54AMP, Luminaire Assy Street Light -15W-20W (DC), Battery-12V/40AH Exide, 6LMS40L, Lantern-2.5W-Solar etc. and raised various invoices, the details of which are as under:-
Sl.no. Invoice No. Dated Amount (Rs.)
1. 0040200067 05.08.2012 2,71,732.36
2. 0040200068 05.08.2012 25,946.15
TOTAL 2,97,678.51
4. It is further stated in the plaint that the said goods were duly received by the defendant. It is further stated in the plaint that plaintiff maintains running statement of account in the name of defendant and as per the statement of account maintained by the plaintiff, a sum of Rs. 2,47,678.51/- is still outstanding against the defendant. It is further stated in the plaint that time and again, representatives of plaintiff requests the defendant to make the CS no.804/17 M/s Minda Nexgentech Ltd. Vs. Mrinal Kanti Sharma Page 2 of 9 payment but on one pretext or other, defendant kept on delaying the payments. It is further stated in the plaint that when the representative of the plaintiff followed the defendant for making the payment, the defendant vide letter dated 16.02.2014 informed the plaintiff that defendant has sold some goods to Ghosh Enterprises allegedly at the behest of Surender Kumar Saigal and he raised frivolous issue.
5. It is further stated in the plaint that plaintiff vide legal notice dated 25.02.2014 called upon the defendant to make the payment but the defendant has not made any payment. Hence, the present suit.
6. The defendant contested the present suit by filing written statement of his defence taking wherein preliminary objections to the effect that plaintiff is guilty of filing forged and fabricated documents as defendant never placed any purchase order. It is further stated in the preliminary objections that when plaintiff plaintiff through his employee namely Mr. Surendra Kumar Saigal, Regional Manager, Minda Nexgentech Ltd. approached the defendant to appoint him as its Distributor for selling its goods and equipments and thereafter, the defendant asked the plaintiff to provide him some of his goods and equipments for trial. It is further stated in the preliminary objections that the goods to be used for trial were received from the plaintiff at Kolkata and payment for these goods was also made at Kolkata, which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It is further stated in the preliminary objections that as the goods and equipments of the CS no.804/17 M/s Minda Nexgentech Ltd. Vs. Mrinal Kanti Sharma Page 3 of 9 plaintiff are still lying in the rented godown of the defendant i.e Anandpuri, B-Road, Barrachpore, Kolkata, West Bengal-700122 for which the defendant is paying rent of Rs. 6,000/- per month and is entitled to get the same recovered from the plaintiff at the Court of Kolkata.
7. In reply on merits, it is contended that Mr. Surendra Kumar Saigal, Regional Manager, Minda Nexgentech Ltd. approached the defendant for giving him the distributorship of his company's various goods and equipment and defendant agreed to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the plaintiff for the goods and equipment that would be given to him by the plaintiff to be used by the defendant for trial purpose. It is further stated in the written statement that defendant paid Rs. 50,000/- through cheque to the plaintiff. It is further stated in the written statement that the plaintiff gave goods and equipment worth Rs. 2,97,678.51/- to the defendant and assured him that the plaintiff would provide full support and cooperation in marketing the additional goods and equipments worth around Rs. 2,47,678.51/- but no such cooperation was provided in this regard. It is further stated in the written statement that defendant never purchased Solar Panel-40W 21 VOC, ISC 2.54 AMP, Luminaire Assy Street Light-15W-20W(DC), Battery-12 V/40AH Exide, 6LMS40L, Lantern-2.5 W-Solar etc. It is further stated in the written statement that all goods and equipment were transported to the plaintiff only on the basis of distributorship. It is further stated in the written statement that it was agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant that the defendant shall make the payment to the plaintiff for the goods and equipment given to him as and when such CS no.804/17 M/s Minda Nexgentech Ltd. Vs. Mrinal Kanti Sharma Page 4 of 9 goods were sold by him with the support and co-operation of the plaintiff. It is further stated in the written statement that the intention of the plaintiff and defendant was never to be in relation as a seller and a purchaser but to be as manufacturer and distributor. Other allegations of the plaint have been denied and disputed by the defendant and prayed for dismissal of suit.
8. Perusal of record shows that plaintiff has not filed replication to the written statement filed by the defendant.
9. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by learned Predecessor of this court on 06.08.2015 for trial, namely:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the money decree for a sum of Rs.3,40,832.77/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Forty Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Two and Seventy Seven paisa only) alongwith pendentelite and future interest @24% p.a from filing of this suit till its realization with cost of suit against the defendant? OPP
2. Relief
10. In support of plaintiff's case, plaintiff has examined one witness i.e Sh. Arun Kumar Malik i.e Attorney of the plaintiff. In his evidence, PW-1 has reiterated the contents of the plaint and has relied upon the document i.e Ex. PW-1/1 to PW-1/10. Ex. PW-1/1 is certified true copy of the Resolution passed at the Board of Directors dated 16.11.2013, Ex. PW-1/2 is invoice bill no. 0040200067 dated 05.08.2012, Ex. PW-1/3 is invoice bill no. 0040200068 dated 05.08.2012, Ex. PW-1/4 is Transporter receipt alongwith tracking CS no.804/17 M/s Minda Nexgentech Ltd. Vs. Mrinal Kanti Sharma Page 5 of 9 report, Ex. PW-1/5 is the statement of account maintained by the plaintiff, PW-1/6 is e-mail dated 04.02.2014 sent by the plaintiff to the defendant, Ex. PW-1/7 is letter dated 16.02.2014 sent by the defendant to the plaintiff and Ex. PW-1/8 is e-mail dated 16.02.2014. Ex. PW-1/9 is legal notice dated 25.02.2014 and Ex. PW-1/10 is postal receipt. PW-1 was also cross-examined by Ld. counsel for the defendant at length.
11. It is a matter of record that PE was closed on 18.02.2016 and thereafter, matter was adjourned for DE. It is also a matter of record that on 04.05.2016, DW-1 tendered his evidence and his cross-examination was deferred. It is also a matter of record that thereafter, various dates were given for cross-examination of DW-1 but DW-1 did not turn up for his cross-examination and accordingly, vide order dated 13.07.2017, DE was closed. Hence, in these circumstances, examination-in-chief of DW-1 cannot be read in evidence.
12. I have heard the arguments on behalf of the plaintiff. None has appeared on behalf of defendant despite various dates to argue the matter. I have also perused the material available on record.
13. My issues wise findings are as follows:-
Issues No. 1.
14. Onus qua issue no. 1 was placed on the plaintiff.
CS no.804/17 M/s Minda Nexgentech Ltd. Vs. Mrinal Kanti Sharma Page 6 of 915. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant during the course of business approached the plaintiff and placed orders of various goods viz Solar Panel-40W 21 VOC, ISC 2.54AMP, Luminaire Assy Street Light -15W-20W (DC), Battery-12V/40AH Exide, 6LMS40L, Lantern-2.5 W-Solar etc. and raised various invoices.
16. On the other hand, it is the case of the defendant that Mr. Surendra Kumar Saigal, Regional Manager, Minda Nexgentech Ltd. approached the defendant for giving him the distributorship of his company's various goods and equipment and defendant agreed to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the plaintiff for the goods and equipment that would be given to him by the plaintiff to be used by the defendant for trial purpose and defendant paid Rs. 50,000/- through cheque to the plaintiff.
17. In nutshell, it is the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff supplied some goods to the defendant and defendant failed to make the payment. Defendant has denied the story of the plaintiff. However, defendant has admitted in his written statement that plaintiff gave goods and equipments worth Rs. 2,97,678.51 to the defendant and defendant paid Rs. 50,000/- through cheque to plaintiff. Hence, as per written statement, defendant has admitted the above said transaction. However, defendant has taken the stand that goods were taken from Mr. Surender Kumar Saigal, Regional Manager, Minda Nexgentech Ltd., who approached the defendant for giving him the distributorship of his company's various goods and equipment worth Rs. 2,97,678.51 for trial. Hence, transaction of Rs. 2,47,678.51 is admitted by the defendant. Defendant has taken the CS no.804/17 M/s Minda Nexgentech Ltd. Vs. Mrinal Kanti Sharma Page 7 of 9 stand that no support and cooperation was provided by the plaintiff. Defendant has also taken another plea that goods were supplied to him for distribution and for the purpose of trial. Hence, in these circumstances, onus was on the defendant to prove that goods were given to him for some other purposes. As stated above, defendant never turned up for his cross-examination to substantiate his case and his examination-in-chief cannot be read in evidence and accordingly, defendant failed to support his pleas. There is a clear admission that an amount of Rs.2,47,678.51 is due qua defendant and plaintiff is entitled to recover this amount from the defendant. Suit is also within limitation. PW-1 has also reproduced the contents of the plaint.
18. For the reasons stated above, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Relief
19. In view of my findings on issue no. 1, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a sum of Rs.2,47,678.51/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Seven Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Eight and Fifty One paise only). The defendant shall also pay interest on the deecretal amount i.e Rs. 2,47,678.51/-. Plaintiff has claimed interest @24% per annum. I am of the view that the above said interest is on higher side and interest of justice would be met if defendant be directed to pay interest with 12% per annum as it is a commercial transaction. Accordingly, defendant is also directed to pay interest on the decreetal amount i.e Rs.2,47,678.51/- @ 12% per annum from the date of institution of suit till the realization of decretal amount. Cost CS no.804/17 M/s Minda Nexgentech Ltd. Vs. Mrinal Kanti Sharma Page 8 of 9 of the suit is also awarded in favour of plaintiff.
20. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
21. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.
Announced in the open court today i.e 31st January, 2018.
(Deepak Wason) ADJ-02: North District:
Rohini Court: Delhi CS no.804/17 M/s Minda Nexgentech Ltd. Vs. Mrinal Kanti Sharma Page 9 of 9 CS no. 804/17 M/s. Minda Nexgentech Ltd. Vs. Mrinal Kanti Sharma 31.01.2018 Present: None.
Vide separate order dictated to the steno in the open court, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a sum of Rs.2,47,678.51/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Seven Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Eight and Fifty One paise only). The defendant is also directed to pay interest on the decreetal amount i.e Rs.2,47,678.51/- @ 12% per annum from the date of institution of suit till the realization of decretal amount. Cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of plaintiff.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.
(Deepak Wason) ADJ-02 (North): Rohini Court:
Delhi: 31.01.2018 CS no.804/17 M/s Minda Nexgentech Ltd. Vs. Mrinal Kanti Sharma Page 10 of 9