Delhi District Court
M/S Modi Infosol Pvt. Ltd vs (1.) M/S A World Trading Company ... on 31 July, 2020
IN THE COURT OF DHEERAJ MOR,
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGECUMRENT CONTROLLER,
SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
Civil Suit no: 884/19
CNR No. DLSE030012262019
M/S MODI INFOSOL PVT. LTD.
Through its Authorized Representative
Having its Corporate Office at: B38, Okhla Industrial Area,
PhaseI, New Delhi110020. ....... Plaintiff
Versus
(1.) M/S A WORLD TRADING COMPANY (LUDHIANA)
Through Proprietor
H. No. 10250, Randadh Park, Haribowal,
Ludhiana, Punjab141001.
(2.) MR. AMIT MALHOTRA (SOLE PROPRIETOR)
M/S A WORLD TRADING COMPANY (LUDHIANA)
H. No. 10250, Randadh Park, Haribowal,
Ludhiana, Punjab141001. .....Defendants
Date of Institution : 10.05.2019
Date on which judgment was reserved : 28.07.2020
Date of pronouncing judgment : 31.07.2020
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 1,02,826/ ALONG WITH PENDENTE LITE
AND FUTURE INTEREST @ 18% PER ANNUM
E X P A R T E JUDGMENT
CS NO. 884/19 M/S MODI INFOSOL PVT. LTD. VS. M/S A WORLD TRADING COMPANY
(LUDHIANA) & ANR. Page 1 of 7
1.Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiff company is that it is a customer oriented technology aware IT solution Provider Company providing a range of IT products and Mobile Accessories and expert services to create competitive advantage. It also deals with the Software, PCs, laptops, desktops, servers, printers, multifunction machines, photocopiers, video projection system, storage and networking products to develop customized IT solution, mobile and mobile accessories for all sorts of customer needs. It is averred that Mr. Shyam Sunder Modi is duly authorized vide Board Resolution dated 22.04.2019 by the Board of Directors of the plaintiff company to institute the present suit.
2. It is averred that defendant no.1 is the sole proprietorship of defendant no.2 and he is responsible for its affairs and management. It is averred that defendant no.2 approached the plaintiff for supply of various networking items on their respective agreed price list from MID 2017.The plaintiff company made due and timely supply of all the orders placed by the defendants and they were duly received by them. It is averred that the defendants have failed to make the payment of ordered goods of the invoice bearing no. TI/DL/1718/3046 for Rs. 40,066/ and invoice bearing no. TI/DL/1718/3045 for Rs. 20,798/. It is further averred that the defendants have not deposited IGST recovered from the plaintiff and thus they are also liable to refund Rs. 7,838/ on this account. It is further averred that the defendants, even after receipt of the goods to their satisfaction, neglected to pay the CS NO. 884/19 M/S MODI INFOSOL PVT. LTD. VS. M/S A WORLD TRADING COMPANY (LUDHIANA) & ANR. Page 2 of 7 amount due to the plaintiff company. It is averred that despite repeated requests, reminders, calls and legal notice dated 04.01.2019 for making payment of the outstanding amount, defendants failed to make the payment of the said outstanding amount.
3. It is further averred that on account of default in the said payment, they are entitled to interest @ 18% per annum on the said principal amount from the date on which it became due till the institution of the present suit. On the basis of the said assertion, the plaintiff has calculated the interest amount to be Rs. 34,124/ and accordingly, it has claimed a total amount of Rs. 1,02,826/, after adding the said principal amount and interest thereupon and also Rs. 7,838/ towards IGST recovery. In addition to the said amount, the plaintiff has claimed pendente lite and future interest on the said amount. Hence, the present suit for recovery of the said amount along with interest @ 18% per annum till its realisation.
4. Summons for settlement of the issues of the suit were sent to the defendants and they were received back duly served. However, despite service, no one appeared on their behalf. Accordingly, they were proceeded exparte vide order dated 13.09.2019. Then the case was fixed for exparte plaintiff evidence.
5. In exparte plaintiff evidence, plaintiff examined its AR Sh. Shyam Sunder Modi as PW1. He has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A. He has reiterated the contents of the plaint on oath. Therefore, they are not reproduced herein for the sake of CS NO. 884/19 M/S MODI INFOSOL PVT. LTD. VS. M/S A WORLD TRADING COMPANY (LUDHIANA) & ANR. Page 3 of 7 brevity and to avoid repetition. He has relied upon following documents:
a) Board Resolution of the company dated 22.04.2019 is Ex. PW1/1;
b) Ledger of defendants maintained by plaintiff company is Ex. PW1/2;
c) Invoices with delivery challans are Ex. PW1/3 (colly);
d) Certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex. PW1/4; and
e) Legal notice dated 04.01.2019 along with proof of delivery is Ex. PW1/5.
6. Vide order dated 16.12.2019, exparte plaintiff evidence was closed.
7. Final arguments are heard. Case file is carefully perused.
8. The testimony of PW1 has remained unimpeached. He has categorically and unequivocally testified that the defendants had purchased goods from the plaintiff company vide invoices Ex. PW1/3 (colly) and they defaulted in making its payment. He has corroborated his testimony by proving the relevant documents including original invoices bearing nos. TI/DL/1718/3046 and TI/DL/1718/3045, both dated 30.12.2017 issued in the name of the defendants company as Ex.PW1/3(colly) and statement of account/ledger of defendants in books of plaintiff as Ex. PW1/2. The statement of account/ledger is a computer generated document and the same is supported by certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act Ex. PW1/4. Thus, it is proved as per law. As per the said statement of account/ledger and invoices Ex. PW1/3(colly), a total amount of Rs.1,02,826/ was due against the defendants in respect of the goods supplied to them vide said invoices for an amount of Rs.60,864/. The amount of Rs.1,02,826/ as reflected in the said CS NO. 884/19 M/S MODI INFOSOL PVT. LTD. VS. M/S A WORLD TRADING COMPANY (LUDHIANA) & ANR. Page 4 of 7 ledger is calculated by summing up the said principal amount of Rs. 60,684/, Rs. 7,838/ towards IGST recovery and interest @ 18% interest per annum on the principal amount of the invoices from the date on which they became due till the institution of this suit. However, the plaintiff has failed to place on record any document to show that it is entitled to recover Rs. 7,838/ towards IGST recovery. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the said amount and accordingly, the same is declined.
9. However, in respect of its remaining claim, the suit of the plaintiff has remained uncontroverted and unrebutted as none has appeared on behalf of the defendants to crossexamine the plaintiff's witness. In view of the aforesaid documents and testimonies of PW1, there exists no reason to disbelieve the case of the plaintiff. Hence, all the averments made in the plaint and documents placed on record are deemed to be admitted and hence, stand duly proved. The present transaction was commercial in nature and therefore, interest @ 18% per annum is reasonable for compensating the plaintiff for the loss suffered by it due to nonpayment of its legitimate due amount. By virtue of the unimpeached testimony of PW1 and the documents placed on record by him, I am satisfied that, on the date of institution of this suit, a total amount of Rs. 94,988/ was due and payable by the defendants to the plaintiff towards the sale price of the goods supplied to them.
10. The invoices of the goods are dated 30.12.2017 and they were delivered to the defendants on the same date. As per the plaintiff, CS NO. 884/19 M/S MODI INFOSOL PVT. LTD. VS. M/S A WORLD TRADING COMPANY (LUDHIANA) & ANR. Page 5 of 7 it was agreed that the sale price against the said invoices was to be paid within 30 days of the receipt of goods. The cause of action to institute the present suit arose after expiry of the said 30 days when the defendants defaulted in payment of the balance sale price of the goods. The present suit was instituted on 10.05.2019. Thus, the present suit is filed within the statutory limitation period. Further, part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this court as transaction between the parties took place at Okhla Industrial Area, PhaseI, New Delhi, which falls within the jurisdiction of this court. Thus, this court has territorial jurisdiction to try this case. Furthermore, since the value of the suit is less than Rs.3,00,000/, this court has pecuniary jurisdiction to try and adjudicate this case.
11. In respect of pendente lite and future interest, the plaintiff has claimed an interest @ 18 % per annum. The said transaction was commercial in nature and therefore, interest @ 18% per annum seems to be a reasonable interest for compensating the plaintiff for the loss suffered by him due to nonreceipt of its payment in time. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to the said interest. However, the aforementioned claimed amount is computed after adding principal amount of Rs. 60,864/ and the interest of Rs.34,124/, which is calculated from the date of default till institution of the present suit. Thus, if the interest is awarded on the total claimed amount of Rs.94,988/, it would be a compounding interest, which would be unreasonable and unjust.
CS NO. 884/19 M/S MODI INFOSOL PVT. LTD. VS. M/S A WORLD TRADING COMPANY (LUDHIANA) & ANR. Page 6 of 7 Therefore, the interest should be awarded on the original principal amount of Rs. 60,864/.
12. Thus, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants for the sum of Rs.94,988/ (Rupees Ninety Four Thousand Nine Hundred And Eighty Eight Only) alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.60,864/ (Rupees Sixty Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty Four Only) from the date of filing of this suit till its realisation. Both the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the decretal amount.
13. The plaintiff is also entitled to the cost of the suit. Accordingly, the same is ordered to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff.
Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31.07.2020 (DHEERAJ MOR) Senior Civil Judgecum Rent Controller South East District, Saket Court, New Delhi.
31.07.2020 This judgment contains 07 pages and each page is signed by me.
(DHEERAJ MOR) Senior Civil Judgecum Rent Controller South East District, Saket Court, New Delhi.
31.07.2020 CS NO. 884/19 M/S MODI INFOSOL PVT. LTD. VS. M/S A WORLD TRADING COMPANY (LUDHIANA) & ANR. Page 7 of 7