Delhi District Court
M/S Moonlight Printer & Paper Convertor vs M/S Victoria Foods Pvt. Ltd on 10 September, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS. SNIGDHA SARVARIA, CIVIL JUDGE,
CENTRAL05 TIS HAZARI COURTS , DELHI
Suit No. 782/2010
IN THE MATTER OF:
M/s Moonlight Printer & Paper Convertor
19,Nangli Sakarwati, Najafgarh,
New Delhi110043
though its partner
Sh. Rajesh Rastogi ............Plaintiff
VERSUS
M/s Victoria Foods Pvt. Ltd.
B39, Lawrence Road,
Industrial Area, Delhi110036
through its Director ....................Defendant
Date of Institution: 23.12.1998
Date of Reserving for Judgment: 03.09.2012
Date of Judgment : 10.09.2012
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 2,09,329/
JUDGMENT:
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the suit for recovery filed by the plaintiff.
2. Brief facts of the case as per the plaintiff are as under: In January, 1998, the defendant company placed orders with the Suit No. 782/2010 Page No. 1 of 8 plaintiff for supply of 10 Kg & 5Kg sized outers of printed bags. Consequently, the plaintiff had supplied goods to the defendant company vide various challans dt. 14,011998, 15011998, 3001 1998, 13021998 & 14021998. The plaintiff company company raised the bill No. 047 dt/ 14021998 on the defendant company demanding a sum of Rs. 1,82,275/ as price of goods including L.S.T. @ 7%. Due to nonpayment of the said amount the plaintiff sent a letter dt. 02051998 to the defendant. But to no avail. Thereafter, the plaintiff firm issued a legal notice dt. 14081998, but despite the same, the defendant did not pay the outstanding amount. Hence the present suit is filed.
3. On the other hand, the defendant in his written statement has submitted that the defendant and plaintiff were having no business dealing directly for supply of inner and outers of 10 Kg & 5 Kg. LG bags nor the defendant had placed any order with the plaintiff at any time. The defendant only placed order with M/s Eureka Polymers Ltd. from whom the quotations were called. However, the aforesaid firm failed to supply the bags complete in compliance of the order, the said firm requested the defendant to arrange the remaining bags from some manufacturer. On giving consent by the defendant the aforesaid firm arranged the balance Suit No. 782/2010 Page No. 2 of 8 bag from the plaintiff. But they failed to hand over the bill of their firm. But the bags supplied to the defendant were of inferior quality. The defendant received several complaints in writing, therefore the defendant complained in writing vide letter dt. 0404 1999 requesting the plaintiff for lifting the bags supplied and in its place for supply of fresh and of superior quality of bags. But the plaintiff did not consider the request of the defendant. Later on vide letter dt. 21041999 and reminder dt. 16051999 was sent to the plaintiff to compensate the defendant for the loses suffered by the plaintiff even then the plaintiff did not care for the request of the defendant. Further the defendant denied all the allegations of the plaintiff which are made in his plaint and prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed.
4. From the pleading of parties following issues were framed vide order dt.09022004.
i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of Rs. 2,09,329/ as prayed ? OPP
ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any interests, if so, at what rate and for what period? OPP
iii) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD
iv) Whether there is no privity of contract between the parties as Suit No. 782/2010 Page No. 3 of 8 claimed? OPD.
v) Relief
5. To prove his case the plaintiff has examined Sh. Rajesh Rastogi as PW1. PW1 has filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A. In his affidavit, the PW1 has reiterated the facts mentioned in the plaint and put reliance on the following documents:
i) The copy of Form A in respect of the registration of plaintiff firm is Ex. PW1/1.
ii) The copies of challans are Ex. PW1/2 to PW1/8.
iii) The bill bring No. 047 dt. 14021998 is Ex. Pw1/9.
iv) The letter dt. 02051998 and postal receipt of the same is Ex. PW1/10 & Ex. Pw1/11 .
v) Legal notice dt. 14081998 and postal receipt & AD Card of the same is Ex. PW1/12 & Ex. PW1/14 respectively.
The PW1 was also crossexamined by the Ld. counsel for the defendant at length.
6. On the other hand, the defendant has examined his witness Sh. Rakesh Jain as DW1. PW1 has filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW1/A. In his affidavit, the DW1 has reiterated the facts mentioned in the written statement and put reliance on the various documents which are fully mentioned in the examination of Suit No. 782/2010 Page No. 4 of 8 DW1 conducted on 04022008.
The DW1 was also crossexamined by the Ld. counsel for the plaintiff at length.
7. I have heard Ld. counsel for both the parties, perused the record & gone through the relevant provision of law.
8. My issue wise finding is as under: I shall take issue No. 3 & 4 first
9. Issue No. 3 Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD The burden to prove this issue was on the defendant. The defendant did not lead any evidence in this regard. Also, the defendant did not otherwise prove this issue. Therefore, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
10. Issue No. 4 Whether there is no privity of contract between the parties as claimed? OPD The burden to prove this issue was on the defendant. The defendant denies that the defendant ever placed an order with the plaintiff. But on the other hand plaintiff has placed or record certain invoices Ex. PW1/2 to 9 to show that there is privity of contract between the parties. The witness DW1 Sh. Rakesh Jain has admitted receipt of Ex. PW1/9 in his crossexamination. Where the goods were supplied to the defendant by the plaintiff and the Suit No. 782/2010 Page No. 5 of 8 defendant had admitted that the same were received by it, it was sufficient to raise a presumption, till the contrary was proved, that an order had been placed for the supply of goods with the plaintiff by the defendant. Therefore, clearly there is privity of contract between the parties. Therefore, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
11. Issue No. 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of Rs. 2,09,329/ as prayed ? OPP The case of the plaintiff is that in January, 1998, the defendant company placed orders with the plaintiff for supply of 10 Kg & 5Kg sized outers of printed bags. Consequently, the plaintiff had supplied goods to the defendant company vide various challans dt. 14,011998, 15011998, 30011998, 13021998 & 1402 1998. The plaintiff company company raised the bill No. 047 dt/ 14021998 on the defendant company demanding a sum of Rs. 1,82,275/ as price of goods including L.S.T. @ 7%. Due to non payment of the said amount the plaintiff sent a letter dt. 0205 1998 to the defendant. But to no avail. Thereafter, the plaintiff firm issues a legal notice dt. 14081998, but despite the same, the defendant did not pay the outstanding amount. To prove its case the plaintiff has placed on record challans Ex.PW1/2 to 8. Ex Suit No. 782/2010 Page No. 6 of 8 PW1/9 is the consolidated bill of Rs. 1,82,275/ due towards the defendant. Further an interest of Rs. 27,054/ is due from the date of the bill till filing of the suit. The defendant has merely denied the case of the plaintiff on the ground that there is no privity of contract between the parties but same issue has been decided as issue no. 4 above, which need not be discussed here again. The defendant has not disproved the bills and challans duly proved by the plaintiff. The witnesses from both the sided have been crossexamined qua the counterclaim filed by the defendant, which was later withdrawn from this court due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. Therefore, nothing material has come in rebuttal from the side of the defendant to disprove the case of the plaintiff. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled to decree of recovery of Rs. 2,09,329/ from the defendant. Hence this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
12. Issue No. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any interests, if so, at what rate and for what period? OPP The plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff is entitled to pendentelite and future interest @ 18% pa, which is the market rate of interest. The defendant denied that the plaintiff is entitled to an interest @ 18% pa. Interest @ 18 % p.a. which is very exorbitant and Suit No. 782/2010 Page No. 7 of 8 unreasonable . Hence the plaintiff is entitled to pendentelite and further interest @ 9 % p.a from filling of the suit till the actual realization of the decreetal amount . Hence this issue is decided accordingly.
13.Relief Hence a decree, for the recovery of Rs. 2,09,329/ along with pendentelite and future interest at the rate of 9 % p.a. from the filling of the suit till the actual realization of the decreetal amount, is passed in favour of the plaintiff. Cost of the suit is also awarded to the plaintiff.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced & signed in the ( Snigdha Sarvaria) open court on 10.09.2012. Civil Judge/Central05 Delhi Suit No. 782/2010 Page No. 8 of 8