Delhi District Court
M/S. M-Five Security Pvt. Ltd vs M/S. H.G. Retail Solutions Pvt. Ltd on 11 April, 2012
M/s. M-Five Security Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. H.G. Retail Solutions
Pvt. Ltd. & Anr
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHREYA ARORA:
CIVIL JUDGE-1, SOUTH DISTRICT, NEW DELHI
Suit No. 548/10
Case ID No. 02403C0122752009
In the matter of
M/s. M-Five Security Pvt. Ltd.
A Company incorporated under
The Companies Act, having its regd. office at:
126, Greenview Apartments, Mandi Raod,
New Manglapuri, Mehrauli,
New Delhi-110 030.
(Through its Authorized Representative
Sh. Amar Bahadur Singh)
.................Plaintiff
Versus
1. M/s. H.G. Retail Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
A Company incorporated under
The Companies Act, having its regd. office at:
Nehru Stadium, New Delhi.
Presently at:
143/2, IGNOU Road,
Opp. Revenue Estate,
Neb Sarai, New Delhi.
2. Mr. Karan Tomar
Director M/s. H.G. Retail Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
Presently at 143/2, IGNOU Road,
Opp. Revenue Estate,
Neb Sarai, New Delhi.
...............Defendants
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF A SUM OF RS. 1,10,107/-
(RUPEES ONE LACS THEN THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED
SEVEN) ALONGWITH INTEREST PENDENTE LITE.
Date of Institution : 12.05.2009
Date of reserving the Judgment : 02.04.2012
Date of pronouncement : 11.04.2012
Suit no. 548/10 Page 1 of 6
M/s. M-Five Security Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. H.G. Retail Solutions
Pvt. Ltd. & Anr
Decision : Decreed
JUDGMENT :
1. This is an ordinary suit for recovery of Rs. 1,10,107/- (rupees one lacs then thousand one hundred seven) along with pendente lite and future interest @ 2.5% per month.
2. The version of the plaintiff is that it is carrying on business of providing security, housekeeping and pest control services under the name and style of M/s. M- Five Security Pvt. Ltd having its registered office at - 126, Greenview Apartments, Mandi Road, New Manglapuri, Mehrauli, New Delhi-30. The present suit has been filed by Sh. Amar Bahadur Singh, Authorized Representative of the plaintiff firm. He has been authorized and empowered to sign / verify the plaint and institute the present suit. It is averred that the defendant no. 1 company through defendant no. 2 approached the plaintiff company for availing security services at their various show-rooms and office and requested for providing security guards and supervisors and the same were provided by the plaintiff company from the month of February, 2006 to May, 2006. The plaintiff company had provided different number of security guards at the rate of Rs.5051/- per security guard per month at various locations in Delhi and NCR. The plaintiff has been raising invoices against supply made to the defendants. The bills raised contained specific condition as to the payment be made within 7 Suit no. 548/10 Page 2 of 6 M/s. M-Five Security Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. H.G. Retail Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Anr days of the presentation of bills failing which an interest @ 2.5% per month shall be charged.
3. It is further averred that the defendant company made payments in discharge of their liability through cheque no. 264125 and 099169 both dated 07/04/2006 for Rs. 35,375 and Rs.4,154 respectively; cheque no. 099276 dated 24/04/2006 for rs. 4,847/- and 470381 dated 12/05/2006 for Rs. 46,231/- while the remaining bills of Rs. 82,120 (rupees eight two thousand one hundred and twenty only) for the services provided till 12/05/2006 are still unpaid.
4. Despite several requests the defendant failed to make payment and consequently the plaintiff bank was constrained to issue a legal demand notice dated 20.06.2007. The defendant neither replied nor made the payment.
5. The plaintiff has therefore claimed that an amount of of Rs. 82,120 (rupees eight two thousand one hundred and twenty only) is due, outstanding and payable by the defendant along with the interest (pre-suit interest) @ 2.5% per month, thus making the total liability of the defendant as Rs. 1,10,107/- (rupees one lacs then thousand one hundred seven). Hence the present suit was filed.
6. The defendants were duly served with summons. However, the defendant failed to appear before the Court and chose to remain absent. The suit was accordingly proceeded ex-parte qua the defendant.
7. The cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this court since the contract for providing security Suit no. 548/10 Page 3 of 6 M/s. M-Five Security Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. H.G. Retail Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Anr services was entered into in Delhi the payments were also made in Delhi, and the office of the Defendant is also situated at Delhi.
8. Plaintiff has led ex-parte evidence and in order to prove its case the Plaintiff company has examined one witness namely Mr. Amar Bahadur Singh (PW1), Senior Manager of the plaintiff company. PW1 deposed on the lines of the plaint. The PW1 has exhibited the certified copy of board resolution dated 19.06.2007 as Ex PW1/1, office copies of the bills/ invoices as Ex PW1/2 (colly), legal notice dated 20.06.2007 as Ex PW 1/3, postal receipts of registered AD and UPC as Ex PW 1/4 (colly), and acknowledgment card as Ex PW1/5.
9. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the plaintiff and have gone through the records carefully.
10. PW 1 has been examined by the plaintiff bank in order to prove its case. PW1 has deposed on the lines of the plaint and proved various invoives raised by the plaintiff company. The plaintiff has proved that it supplied security services to the defendants through invoices raised for the month of February, 2006 to May, 2006. Plaintiff has also proved the legal /demand notice as well as the proof of service of the same on the defendants. PW-1 was neither cross examined on behalf of defendants nor any positive evidence was adduced on behalf of the defendant as the suit was proceeded ex parte qua the defendant. The testimony of PW1 has therefore gone unrebutted. Accordingly, I have no reason to disbelieve the unrebutted testimony of PW1 or to doubt the authenticity and veracity of the Suit no. 548/10 Page 4 of 6 M/s. M-Five Security Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. H.G. Retail Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Anr documents exhibited as Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/5.
11. In the facts and circumstances, the plaintiff has satisfactorily proved that the payment of an amount of Rs. 82,120 (rupees eight two thousand one hundred and twenty only) is due, outstanding and payable by the defendant along with the interest (pre-suit interest) @ 2.5% per month, thus making the total liability of the defendant as Rs. 1,10,107/- (rupees one lacs then thousand one hundred seven). The invoices/ bills raised by the plaintiff company are of February, 2006 to May, 2006. The last payment was made on 12.05.2006. The suit has been filed on 12.05.2009. The suit is accordingly within limitation.
12. The plaintiff has satisfactorily established that the plaintiff is entitled to decree for an amount Rs. 1,10,107/- (rupees one lacs then thousand one hundred seven) which shall form the principal/decreetal sum adjudged.
13. The plaintiff has claimed pendente lite and future interest @ 2.5% per month. The invoice contains a stipulation that interest @ 2.5% per month would be payable on delayed payment. I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met in case the plaintiff is awarded pendente lite and future interest @ 12% p.a. on the principal/ decretal sum adjudged from the date of institution of the suit till the date of realization.
14. Thus, the suit is decreed for an amount of Rs. 1,10,107/- (rupees one lacs then thousand one hundred seven) in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant alongwith pendente lite and future interest Suit no. 548/10 Page 5 of 6 M/s. M-Five Security Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. H.G. Retail Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Anr @ 12% per annum on the principal/ decreetal sum adjudged from the date of institution of the suit till realization.
15.Suit of the plaintiff is therefore decreed in the aforesaid terms against the defendants. Cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
16.Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Thereafter, file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open (SHREYA ARORA)
Court on 11.04.2012 CIVIL JUDGE-1
(SOUTH DISTRICT)
(Judgment contains 6 pages.) SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Suit no. 548/10 Page 6 of 6