Delhi District Court
Pasupati Acrylon Ltd vs M/S Swastic Industries India on 29 November, 2024
DLND010081882023
IN THE COURT OF MRS VINEETA GOYAL,
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL-03),
PATIALA HOUSE, NEW DELHI
CS (COMM) No.: 519/2023
CNR No. DLND01-008188-2023
In the matter of:
Pasupati Acrylon Limited
M-14, Middle Circle,
Connaught Circus,
New Delhi-110001.
Through its authorized representative
Sh. Satish Kumar Bansal ........ Plaintiff
Versus
1 M/s. Swastic Industries (India)
Plot No.41-42,
Industrial Area, Sector-1,
Parwanoo-173220, Solan,
Himachal Pradesh,
GSTIN:02ABRFS2508K2Z0, State Code-02,
PAN : ABRFS2508K
2. Shri Karan Mittal M:9888905889
Partner
M/s. Swastic Industries (India) Digitally signed
by VINEETA
VINEETA GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2024.11.29
17:18:54 +0530
CS (COMM)-519/2023 Pasupati Acrylon Ltd. Vs. M/s. Swastic Industries (India) & Ors. Page 1 of 8
Plot No.-41-42,
Industrial Area, Sector-1,
Parwanoo-173220, Solan,
Himachal Pradesh.
3. Sh. Brij Mittal
Partner
M/s. Swastic Industries (India)
Plot No.-41-42,
Industrial Area, Sector-1,
Parwanoo-173220, Solan,
Himachal Pradesh. ......Defendants
Date of institution of suit : 26.09.2023
Date of Judgment : 29.11.2024
Appearance : Sh. Swayam S. Pahi, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
None for defendant.
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.11,38,396/- (Rupees Eleven Lacs Thirty Eight Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety Six Only) along with pendente lite and future interest against the defendants.
2 Facts as epitomized in plaint are that the plaintiff, a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act 1956, is engaged in the manufacturing of two segments i.e. Acrylic Fiber and CPP Films. Sh. Satish Kumar Bansal is Authorized Digitally signed by VINEETA VINEETA GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2024.11.29 17:19:06 +0530 CS (COMM)-519/2023 Pasupati Acrylon Ltd. Vs. M/s. Swastic Industries (India) & Ors. Page 2 of 8 Representative of the plaintiff company. On the other hand, defendant no.1, partnership firm, is engaged in business of operating an online marketplace. The defendant nos.2 and 3, being partners, are incharge and responsible for day to day affairs and business of defendant no.1.
2.1 According to the plaintiff, the defendants approached the plaintiff and ordered for purchase of CPP Films and agreed that they would be jointly and severally liable to make payment of material supplied at the office of plaintiff at New Delhi.
Thereafter the defendants were dealing with plaintiff on a credit basis time to time and plaintiff had been rendering services and supplying the material as per their specification and had been raising bills in accordance with agreed terms and maintaining a regular, true and faithful account of transactions / dealings with defendants in the books of accounts in the ordinary course of business.
2.2 It is case of the plaintiff that it had raised invoices for all the material supplied to the defendants and submitted requisite details on GST portal through filing GSTR-I timely to enable the defendants to take the benefit of input credit of GST which has been duly taken by the defendants. As per books of accounts of the plaintiff, a sum of Rs.11,38,396/- is outstanding as a debit balance against the invoice No.CPP-0255 dated 22.08.2020 amounting to Rs.12,38,396/- and the defendants had paid a sum of Digitally signed by VINEETA VINEETA GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2024.11.29 17:19:16 +0530 CS (COMM)-519/2023 Pasupati Acrylon Ltd. Vs. M/s. Swastic Industries (India) & Ors. Page 3 of 8 Rs.1,00,000/- as part payment against the said bill. It is further case of the plaintiff that plaintiff made several verbal reminders to the defendants for the payment of pending dues but the defendants avoided making the payment with mala fide intentions. A demand notice dated 10.02.2023 through speed post / courier was duly served upon the defendants. Despite service of demand cum legal notice, the defendants have not come forward to make the payment. As per Commercial Courts, Commercial Division, Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015, the plaintiff had initiated a pre-mediation which failed due to non- appearance of defendants.
2.3 It is further case of the plaintiff that this court has territorial jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the present suit. The plaintiff office is situated at Connaught Place, New Delhi, and it was also agreed between the parties that all payments with regard to material supplied would be made by the defendants at the office of plaintiff situated at New Delhi. It is also averred in the plaint by the plaintiff that present suit is a Commercial Suit as the transaction between the plaintiff and defendants falls within the definition of Commercial Dispute as defined u/s. 2(c) of Act, 2015. The suit is within the period of limitation.
3 Summons were sent for service upon defendants, through registered AD, and the same were received with remarks of 'refusal'. Considering the service of summons being deemed Digitally signed by VINEETA VINEETA GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2024.11.29 17:19:27 +0530 CS (COMM)-519/2023 Pasupati Acrylon Ltd. Vs. M/s. Swastic Industries (India) & Ors. Page 4 of 8 service upon defendants, opportunity was provided to the defendants to file written statement. The defendants failed to file written statement within statutory period of 120 days as provided, consequently right of the defendants to file written statement stood forfeited vide order dated 20.03.2024.
4 The plaintiff led evidence by way of affidavit of PW-1 Sh. Satish Kumar Bansal and thereafter closed its evidence.
5 I have heard arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and gone through the record.
6 In order to establish its case, the plaintiff examined Sh.
Satish Kumar Bansal, PW-1, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.PW-1/A and makes statement in consonance with averments made in the plaint. He testified that he is authorized representative of plaintiff and vide Resolution dated 11.02.2019 has been authorized to pursue the present case. He further deposed that he is conversant with the facts of the case and proved Incorporation Certificate of plaintiff company and Board Resolution as Ex.PW-1/1 and Ex.PW-1/2. He further deposed that plaintiff had raised invoices / bills for material supplied to the defendants. However, the defendants have not made outstanding payment for a sum of Rs.11,38,396/- against the invoice no.CPP-0455 dated 22.08.2020 Ex.PW-1/4 amounting to Rs.12,38,396/-. But the defendants had paid Rs.1,00,000/- as part Digitally signed by VINEETA VINEETA GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2024.11.29 17:19:39 +0530 CS (COMM)-519/2023 Pasupati Acrylon Ltd. Vs. M/s. Swastic Industries (India) & Ors. Page 5 of 8 payment against the said bill on 24.12.2020. He proved ledger account from 01.04.2020 to 30.03.2021 Ex.PW-1/3. He further deposed that plaintiff had submitted the requisite details through filing GSTR-I and proved on record relevant page of GSTR-I filed by the plaintiff as Ex.PW-1/5. He further proved legal notice dated 10.02.2023 Ex.PW-1/6 along with tracking report Ex.PW-1/7 calling upon the defendants to pay the outstanding amount to the plaintiff. Non-starter report is proved as Ex.PW-1/8.
7 From oral deposition of PW-1 coupled with documentary evidence on record including ledger account statement Ex.PW-1/3, it transpires that there were numerous transactions between the parties from 01.04.2020 to 30.03.2021 and there is entry reflecting the plaintiff had received part payment of Rs.1,00,000/- on 24.12.2020 for the outstanding invoice of Rs.12,38,396/- Ex.PW-1/4. The document i.e. GSTR-I
- B2B as relied upon by the plaintiff further shows that invoice Ex.PW-1/4 was uploaded by the plaintiff which can be viewed by the defendants. As discussed above, the defendants neither appeared nor filed written statement despite time being granted to file the same for the reasons best known to them to refute the claim of the plaintiff. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that the defendants have filed GSTR-2 B summary with regard to non-claiming of GST input or rejection, put on the portal pertaining to invoice Ex.PW-1/4. Digitally signed by VINEETA GOYAL VINEETA Date:
GOYAL 2024.11.29
17:19:46
+0530
CS (COMM)-519/2023 Pasupati Acrylon Ltd. Vs. M/s. Swastic Industries (India) & Ors. Page 6 of 8
8 From the testimony of PW-1 Sh. Sunil Kumar Bansal
as well as documents placed on record and proved in accordance with law by PW-1, plaintiff has succeeded in proving that defendants have not made payment towards outstanding dues to the plaintiff with regard to invoice Ex.PW-1/4. The defendants have also failed to join the mediation proceedings initiated by the plaintiff prior to the filing of the suit and made no effort to appear before the Court to challenge the claim made by the plaintiff against it. The testimony of the plaintiff remained unchallenged and only conclusion drawn in these circumstances is that the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.11,38,396/- from the defendants.
9 The plaintiff has also prayed for grant of pendente lite and future interest in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants w.e.f. the due date of payment to till the date of realization of the decretal amount. Interest of justice would meet if plaintiff is awarded simple interest @ 6% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.11,38,396/- from the date of filing of the suit till its realization.
Relief :
10 In view thereof, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a sum of Rs.11,38,396/- (Rupees Eleven Lacs Thirty Eight Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety Six Only) along-with Digitally signed by VINEETA VINEETA GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2024.11.29 17:19:54 +0530 CS (COMM)-519/2023 Pasupati Acrylon Ltd. Vs. M/s. Swastic Industries (India) & Ors. Page 7 of 8 pendente lite and future simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of suit till its realization in favour of plaintiff against the defendants.
11 Costs of the suit are also awarded in favour of the plaintiff.
Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after due Digitally signed compliance. by VINEETA VINEETA GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2024.11.29 17:20:02 +0530 Pronounced in the open Court (VINEETA GOYAL) on this 29th November, 2024 District Judge (Commercial-03) Patiala House, New Delhi CS (COMM)-519/2023 Pasupati Acrylon Ltd. Vs. M/s. Swastic Industries (India) & Ors. Page 8 of 8