Delhi District Court
Mr. Sachin Verma vs The Handcraft on 23 November, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. PITAMBER DUTT:
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT-01)
EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
CS (Comm) No. 151/22
Sh. Sachin Verma
Sole Proprietor of M/s RCV Infotech
M/s RCV Infotech,
Having its Registered Office at:-
H.No. A-4(S), 1st Floor,
Sector - 80, Noida,
U.P. 201305. ................Plaintiff
Versus
1. M/s The Handcraft
Through its Proprietor
Registered Office:-
D-68, Fourth Floor,
Vikas Marg, Shakarpur,
Near Metro Pillar no. 50,
Delhi - 110092.
Also At:- House no. 271, Block-A,
Prashant Vihar, Rohini,
Delhi - 110085.
2. Ms. Swati Mittal (Proprietor)
Registered Officer at:-
D-68, Fourth Floor,
Vikas Marg, Shakarpur,
Near Metro Pillar no. 50,
Delhi - 110092.
Also At:- House no. 271, Block-A,
Prashant Vihar, Rohini,
Delhi - 110085. .............Defendant
Date of institution : 23.05.2022
Date of reserving judgment : 05.11.2024
Date of judgment : 23.11.2024
CS (Comm) No. 151/22
Sachin Verma Vs The Handcraft & Anr. Page No. 1 of 13
JUDGMENT:
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the present suit filed by the plaintiff against defendants for seeking recovery of Rs.6,92,561.13P. along with pendente lite and future interest @ 24% Per Annum. The brief facts necessitated in filing of the present suit are given as under:-
2. The plaintiff has averred that he is running a business of manufacturing garments and T-shirts in the name and style of M/s RCV Infotech and defendants are engaged in online business of selling garments etc.
3. The defendants purchased ready-made garments and T- shirts from the plaintiff vide various invoices, as per online orders received from its customers, from time to time and thereafter delivered the same to the customers as per their orders.
4. The plaintiff has further averred that defendants purchased garments worth Rs.13,12,124.50P. from them and made on- account payment of Rs.8,94,919/- and after adjusting the said amount, a sum of Rs.4,17,205.50P is due and outstanding against the defendants.
5. The plaintiff has further averred that he issued a legal notice dated 03.10.2019 to the defendants, calling upon them to make the payment of balance amount of Rs. 4,17,205.50 P along with interest. The defendants though replied the said legal notice but failed to clear the outstanding amount. The plaintiff also filed a complaint dated 12.11.2019 against the defendants before the CS (Comm) No. 151/22 Sachin Verma Vs The Handcraft & Anr. Page No. 2 of 13 CMM, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Noida, U.P.
6. The plaintiff has further averred that he also filed an application under Section 12 A of the Commercial Courts Act before the District Legal Service Authority, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi for seeking pre-institution mediation, but defendants did not participate in the said proceedings and a non-starter report was issued on 26.02.2022. On the basis of the above averments, the present suit has been filed for adjudication.
7. Pursuant to the summon, defendant no. 2, proprietor of defendant no.1 appeared and filed their written statement taking preliminary objections that plaintiff has not come with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts; That present suit has been filed on the basis of false facts.
8. On merits, defendants have controverted all the averments made in the plaint. The defendants have averred that defendant no. 1 approached the plaintiff as a sampler and after approving the products of the plaintiff, defendant no.1 entered into an oral contract with the plaintiff in February 2019, accordingly, plaintiff started catering to the orders received by defendant no. 1 but plaintiff not only failed to dispatch the orders on time but also miserably failed to maintain the quality of the products, due to which defendants faced huge volume of returns pertaining to such complaints.
9. The defendants have further averred that in August 2019, after various fruitless discussions with the plaintiff, they CS (Comm) No. 151/22 Sachin Verma Vs The Handcraft & Anr. Page No. 3 of 13 terminated the oral contract. She further averred that she had paid a total amount of Rs. 9,50,905/- to the plaintiff, towards the invoices generated from 26.02.2019 to 11.07.2019 in a timely manner. The defendants have also averred that plaintiff supplied defective goods which were returned to him and after adjusting the amount of returned goods, plaintiff has to pay Rs.1,07,445/- to them. All other averments have been denied. It is prayed that the present suit may be dismissed with costs.
10. The plaintiff has filed replication, thereby controverted the averments made in the written statement and reiterated the averments made in the plaint.
11. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Ld. Predecessor of this Court, vide order dated 13.12.2022, has framed the following issues for adjudication:-
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree against the defendant in the sum of Rs.6,92,561.13 P. along with interest, if any, and if yes at what rate and for which period? OPP
2. Relief.
12. In order to prove their case, plaintiff has examined himself as PW - 1 and reiterated the averments made in the plaint in his examination in chief. PW-1 has exhibited invoices (from page no. 28 to 15) as Ex. PW-1/1 (Colly), statement of account of defendant maintained by plaintiff as Ex. PW-1/2, copy of legal notice dated 03.10.2019 as Ex. PW-1/3, reply of the defendant to CS (Comm) No. 151/22 Sachin Verma Vs The Handcraft & Anr. Page No. 4 of 13 the said legal notice dated 10.10.2019 as Ex. PW-1/4, copy of complaint dated 12.11.2019 as Ex. PW-1/5, copy of bank statement as Ex. PW-1/6, Certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW-1/7, Non-Starter report as Ex.PW1/8.
13. PW-1 has been thoroughly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel of defendant.
14. In order to answer the claim of the plaintiff, defendant no.2 has examined herself as DW - 1, she reiterated the averments made in written statement, in her examination in chief. DW-1 has exhibited copy of email threads dated 09.05.2019, 30.05.2019, 02.09.2019 and 25.09.2019 as Ex. DW-1/A, Ex. DW-1/B, Ex. DW-1/C and Ex. DW-1/D and Certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex. DW - 1/E.
15. DW-1 has been thoroughly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
16. I have heard Sh. Vishwendra Verma, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, Ms. Stuti Gupta, Ld. Counsel for defendants and perused the pleadings, evidence and other material placed on record. My issue wise finding is as under:-
Issue no. 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree against the defendant in the sum of Rs.6,92,561.13 P. along with interest, if any, and if yes at what rate and for which period? OPP The plaintiff has claimed that defendants purchased ready- made garments and T-shirts from the plaintiff vide various invoices, as per online orders received by them from their CS (Comm) No. 151/22 Sachin Verma Vs The Handcraft & Anr. Page No. 5 of 13 customers time to time and in this manner, goods worth Rs.13,12,124.50P. Were supplied to the defendants, out of which, defendants made on-account payment of Rs.8,94,919/- and after adjusting the said amount, a sum of Rs.4,17,205.50 P is due and outstanding against the defendants, which defendant no. 2 has failed to pay despite various demands and service of the legal notice.
17. The defendants have claimed that plaintiff and defendant no.1 entered into an oral contract in February 2019 and thereafter plaintiff started catering to the orders received by defendant no.
1. However, plaintiff not only failed to dispatch the orders on time but also miserably failed to maintain the quality of goods, due to which defendants had to receive defective goods, which were returned to the plaintiff. The defendants have further claimed that they paid a sum of Rs. 9,50,905/- to the plaintiff, towards the invoices generated from 26.02.2019 to 11.07.2019. As per defendants, the defective goods were returned by them to the plaintiff, however, plaintiff has included the amount of defective goods as well in the present suit. Whereas after adjusting the amount of defective goods, the plaintiff has to pay Rs.1,07,445/- to the defendants.
18. Both the parties have led their respective evidence in support of their claim.
19. An examination of the pleadings and evidence led on record shows that plaintiff has supplied goods to the defendants vide various invoices, on the basis of oral agreement through e-
CS (Comm) No. 151/22Sachin Verma Vs The Handcraft & Anr. Page No. 6 of 13 portal. As per the plaintiff, he supplied total goods worth Rs.13,12,124.50P. to defendants, and defendants made payment of Rs.8,94,919/- only and failed to pay the remaining amount despite various demands and service of the legal notice Ex. PW-1/3.
20. The defendants have controverted the said fact in their written statement as well as in evidence. As per the defendants, they paid a sum of Rs. 9,50,905/- to the plaintiff and also returned the defective goods, however, plaintiff added the amount of defective goods as well in the present suit.
21. The plaintiff has examined himself as PW - 1 reiterated the fact that he supplied the goods worth Rs. 13,12,124.50P to the defendant and received only Rs. 8,94,919/- in para 4 of his examination in chief. The plaintiff has also exhibited all the invoices and extract of all the goods supplied from 2019-20 (Page no. 28 to 65) as Ex. PW - 1 / 2 (Colly).
22. Ld. Counsel of the defendants has thoroughly cross- examined PW-1 but no suggestion was given to the plaintiff that goods worth Rs. 13,12,124.50P were not supplied by the plaintiff. The defendant thus deemed to have admitted the said claim.
23. It is also relevant that during the cross-examination of DW
- 1, Ld. Counsel of plaintiff confronted her with 15 pages of emails containing date-wise invoices of the goods supplied to them. DW-1 admitted these emails which were exhibited as CS (Comm) No. 151/22 Sachin Verma Vs The Handcraft & Anr. Page No. 7 of 13 Ex.DW-1/P-1.
24. The plaintiff has thus successfully proved that he supplied goods worth Rs.13,12,124.50P to the defendants, which, has also been admitted by the defendants.
25. The plaintiff has also claimed that defendants have paid only a sum of Rs.8,94,919/- out of Rs.13,12,124.50P, which has been disputed by the defendants, who pleaded that they paid a sum of Rs.9,50,905/- to the plaintiff.
26. Ld. Counsel of the defendant, has given a suggestion to PW - 1 during his cross-examination that defendants made payment of Rs.9,50,905/- to the plaintiff, which was denied. However, PW-1 during his cross-examination stated that he received payment of Rs.9,15,058/- from the defendant till 13.07.2019.
27. The plaintiff in his plaint as well as in his examination in chief has stated that he received total amount of Rs. 8,94,919/- from the defendants. Whereas, during his cross-examination recorded on 10.07.2023, he deposed that he received an amount of Rs.9,15,058/- from the defendants. The plaintiff thus himself controverted his claim during his cross-examination.
28. PW - 1 was further cross-examined and asked to brought his chat and bank statement for February - March 2019. During cross-examination recorded on 08.08.2023, PW - 1 deposed that payment of Rs.10,000/-, Rs.5047, Rs.20,800/- and Rs.20,139/- has been made by the defendant. He however volunteered that CS (Comm) No. 151/22 Sachin Verma Vs The Handcraft & Anr. Page No. 8 of 13 the said payments were made by the defendant to the said partnership firm.
29. The plaintiff has also made voluntary statement that he was having a partnership firm, which firm was not having any bank account and the returns of the said firm used to be appropriated in his bank account.
30. The said voluntary statement made by PW - 1 was objected by Ld. Counsel for the defendants.
31. The plaintiff sought to explain that the above amount was though received by him from the defendants but same was not pertaining to the transaction, subject matter of the present suit, but was received by his partnership firm with regard to some other transaction.
32. The said voluntary statement is inadmissible in evidence as plaintiff has not made any such averment in his entire plaint that he was having any partnership firm prior to that, which was also having dealing with defendants.
33. The explanation given by the plaintiff during his cross- examination that the above amount was not regarding the goods supplied by them to the defendants is thus not acceptable.
34. The defendants have thus established that they paid a sum of Rs.9,50,905/- to the plaintiff.
CS (Comm) No. 151/22Sachin Verma Vs The Handcraft & Anr. Page No. 9 of 13
35. The defendants have claimed that plaintiff had supplied goods, which were defective and same were returned by her to the plaintiff, but plaintiff has added the amount of those defective goods as well.
36. The defendants though claimed that she returned the defective goods to the plaintiff. However, she has not placed on record any material whatsoever to establish the said fact.
37. The defendant no. 2 has examined herself as DW - 1. During her cross-examination, she admitted that she received the material mentioned in invoice Ex. PW-1/1 (Colly). Thus, she admitted that she received goods worth Rs.13,12,124.50P.
38. DW-1 was put some other questions regarding her claim of return of defective goods to the plaintiff. These questions and their answers are reproduced as under:-
Ques. You have stated in your written statement that huge volume of material was returned due to complaints. Have you placed on record any return invoices / debit notes regarding the said material?
Ans. There was no scope for return invoices/debit notes in the business being carried on by me as the returned goods could have been reused.
Ques. Is it correct that as per ledger account Ex. PW-1/6, you were to pay Rs.4,17,205.50/- to the plaintiff? Ans. Yes. (Vol. The invoices raised by the plaintiff were not correct. The said amount is against the returned defective goods and the screens that we were billed for).
39. The defendants though claimed that the ledger account Ex. PW-1/6, included the amount of defective goods as well, which were returned. However, when a question was put to DW-1 regarding return of material to the plaintiff, she answered that CS (Comm) No. 151/22 Sachin Verma Vs The Handcraft & Anr. Page No. 10 of 13 there was no scope for return invoices / debit notes in the business as the returned goods could have been reused.
40. The defendants have not placed on record any material whatsoever on record to establish that any defective goods were returned by any customer. The defendants have also failed to establish that defective goods of any value were returned and delivered to the plaintiff at any point of time or that plaintiff had included the amount of defective goods, which were returned by the defendant to the plaintiff.
41. The aforesaid fact thus clearly shows that plaintiff has proved on record that he supplied goods worth Rs.13,12,124.50P. to the defendant. The plaintiff though claimed that he received Rs.8,94,919/- only from the defendant but defendants have proved that plaintiff was paid a sum of Rs.9,50,905/-. After adjusting the said amount, a sum of Rs.3,61,219.50P was due and recoverable against the defendants, which they failed to pay.
42. The plaintiff has also claimed a sum of Rs.2,75,255/- towards interest calculated @ 24% per annum. Admittedly, there was no written agreement with respect to the rate of interest chargeable on late payment.
43. The ledger account Ex. PW-1/6, nowhere contains any entry regarding interest.
44. The plaintiff demanded the due payment vide legal notice dated 03.10.2019 Ex. PW1/3, vide which a sum of Rs.4,14,356/- along with interest was demanded. The said legal notice was CS (Comm) No. 151/22 Sachin Verma Vs The Handcraft & Anr. Page No. 11 of 13 duly served upon the defendant, who gave her reply dated 10.10.2019 Ex. PW- 1/4 but failed to pay the said amount.
45. Though no rate of interest was agreed between the parties. However, defendants have retained the amount of the plaintiff, without any justified reason, therefore, she is liable to pay interest on late payment.
46. Taking into Consideration the above facts and circumstances, as well as in the interest of justice, I am of the considered view that interest of justice would be served if plaintiff is awarded interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 01.11.2019, till the actual realization of the amount.
47. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that plaintiff has failed to prove that a sum of Rs.4,17,205.50P. was due and recoverable against the defendants. However, plaintiff has proved on record that a sum of Rs. 3,61,219.50P was due and recoverable against the defendant, therefore plaintiff is entitled to recover the said amount from the defendants along with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 01.11.2019 till the actual realization of the amount. The plaintiff has thus successfully discharged the onus of issue no. 1, same is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff.
48. Issue no. 2 Relief.
In view of my findings on issue no. 1, the present suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants is partly decreed with cost. A Decree of Recovery for Rs.3,61,219.50P is passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants along with interest @ 9% Per CS (Comm) No. 151/22 Sachin Verma Vs The Handcraft & Anr. Page No. 12 of 13 Annum w.e.f. 01.11.2019 till the realization of the entire amount. A Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. Announced in the Open Court on 23rd November, 2024.
(PITAMBER DUTT) District Judge (Commercial Court-01) East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CS (Comm) No. 151/22 Sachin Verma Vs The Handcraft & Anr. Page No. 13 of 13