Delhi District Court
Abs India P. Ltd vs Abc Infosystems P. Ltd. And Ors on 2 December, 2023
1
In the Court of Dig Vinay Singh, District Judge (Commercial Court)-
03, West, Tis Hazari Extension Building, Delhi
In re:
CS (COMM) 751/2021
CNR No. DLWT01-00784-2021
ABS India Private Limited
No. 13, L.R. Mansion, II Cross,
Kondahalli, Hal Main Road,
Banalore, Karnataka-560008 ... Plaintiff
Vs.
1. ABC Infosystems Private Limited
No. 1/3, 2nd Floor, East Patel Nagar,
New Delhi - 110008
2. The Managing Director,
ABC Infosystems Private Limited
No. 1/3, 2nd Floor, East Patel Nagar,
New Delhi - 110008 ..... Defendants
Date of institution : 18.10.2021
Date of arguments : 18.11.2023
Date of judgment : 02.12.2023
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for recovery of ₹9,54,094/- (Nine Lakh Fifty-Four Thousand Ninety-Four) The dispute between the parties is a 'commercial dispute' within the meaning of section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
1.1. Initially, the plaintiff preferred an ordinary Summary Suit Under order 37 of CPC before non-commercial Court of Ld. ADJ. It was filed on 18.10.2021. Thereafter, vide order dated 23.10.2021 passed by Ld. ADJ-08, West, Delhi, the file was transferred to the Ld. Commercial Judgment CS (COMM) 751/2021 CNR No. DLWT01-00784-2021 ABS India Private Limited Vs. ABC Infosystems Private Limited Dated 02.12.2023 Page 1/16 2 Court-01 in West District through the Court of Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge, (West), vide another order dated 09.11.2021. Upon receipt of the matter, the Ld. Predecessor Court directed the plaintiff to file proper plaint afresh in terms of Commercial Courts Act 2015, and the plaintiff filed afresh plaint. This time, the plaintiff did not file the plaint in terms of Order 37 of CPC. Thus, an ordinary 'commercial suit' was filed by the plaintiff.
1.2. The plaintiff has impleaded the above named two defendants.
Defendant number 1 (D1) is a company, whereas Defendant number 2 (D2) is its Managing Director. For the reasons to follow, the present judgment is directed against D1 only.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff company is in business of providing 'Communication Solutions'. It builds, implements and maintains 'Alcatel-Lucent Communication networks', which assists in efficient exchange of communication data between the enterprises, such as voice, multimedia, other relevant information/data. As per plaintiff, the defendant chose to opt for the services of the plaintiff for supply, installation and commissioning of 'Gigabit Fibre Port Switches' of two different models, as described in para 6 of the plaint, which reads as follows: -
"i. 40 - Alcatel-Lucent Model : OS6860E-U28 - 24 Gigabit Fibre Port Switch ii. 50 - Alcatel-Lucent Model : OS6860E-24 - 24 Gigabit Fibre Port Switch"
2.1. Purchase order was placed by D1 company upon the plaintiff on 10.11.2016, under purchase order no. ABC/2016-17/062, for a total value of ₹1,13,16,000/- (One Crore Thirteen Lakh Sixteen Thousand).
Judgment CS (COMM) 751/2021 CNR No. DLWT01-00784-2021 ABS India Private Limited Vs. ABC Infosystems Private Limited Dated 02.12.2023 Page 2/16 3 The goods were to be delivered at Central Stores Unit, Directorate of Purchase & Source, B.A.R.C. Trombay, Mumbai. As per the terms of the purchase order, 80% of the price of goods was to be paid before delivery; 15% was to be paid through post-dated cheques and; the remaining 5% was to be adjusted in bank guarantee after completion of three years' warranty period stipulated in the purchase order. On 28.12.2016 & 29.12.2016, the plaintiff received 80% of the total amount. Remaining 15% was also received by the plaintiff on 15.03.2017. But the claim of the plaintiff is that the remaining amount of 5% of the purchase order amounting to ₹5,65,800/- (Five Lakhs Sixty-Five Thousand Eight Hundred) was not paid by the defendant despite the fact that the goods were supplied and the warranty period of three years also stood exhausted.
2.2. Plaintiff also claims that under the purchase order there was a stipulation that the above mentioned amount towards cost of good was inclusive of Central Sales Tax (CST) and the defendant was to provide Form-C to the plaintiff so that plaintiff could avail concessional rate of Central Sales Tax. Despite supply of goods and raising of invoice dated 28.12.2016 in which CST @ 2% was included, the defendant failed to supply Form-C also. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff had to pay a sum of ₹3,88,294/- (Three Lakh Eighty-Eight Thousand Two Hundred Ninety-Four) towards the sales tax assessment/audit conducted by the Karnataka Sales Tax Department and therefore the plaintiff claims the said amount also from the defendant.
2.3. As per plaintiff, neither at the time of delivery of goods, nor at any subsequent stage, any objection was raised by the defendant as to the goods supplied. Plaintiff also claims that it has come to the knowledge Judgment CS (COMM) 751/2021 CNR No. DLWT01-00784-2021 ABS India Private Limited Vs. ABC Infosystems Private Limited Dated 02.12.2023 Page 3/16 4 of plaintiff that the defendant further sold the equipments to its clients and yet the defendant wrongfully withdrew the bank guarantee in November 2020, i.e. after expiry of three years' warranty period. Legal notice dated 19.05.2021 sent by the plaintiff to the defendant remained unanswered and therefore the present suit claiming total amount of ₹9,54,094/- with interest @ 24% per annum.
3. The defendant contested the suit on the ground that D2 has been impleaded as a defendant wrongly, therefore the suit is bad for mis- joinder of parties; there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff; the suit is based on false and misleading facts & claims by suppressing material facts; the goods supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant were to be supplied at competitive price which were supposed to be reasonable and even at a lesser price available in the market, but the invoice raised by the plaintiff contained higher price of the goods and therefore the defendant is not liable to pay the amount. It is claimed by the defendant that similar goods were available in the market for at least 40 to 50% lesser in price claimed by the plaintiff and when this fact was brought to the notice of the plaintiff, the plaintiff assured the defendant company to adjust the difference amount and to issue credit note. But instead of doing it the plaintiff has malafidely filed the suit. Suit is claimed to be barred by limitation and also U/s 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, and also it is claimed that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction. Defendant claims that it purchased similar goods from other dealers for a much lesser price and also it imported same goods at lesser price, as mentioned in para 6 of the written statement. It is accordingly claimed that the invoice raised by the plaintiff was not correct and was not as per the agreement between the parties. Defendant Judgment CS (COMM) 751/2021 CNR No. DLWT01-00784-2021 ABS India Private Limited Vs. ABC Infosystems Private Limited Dated 02.12.2023 Page 4/16 5 also claims that Form-C were indeed supplied to the plaintiff and that it did not receive any legal notice from the plaintiff.
4. In replication, the plaintiff denied that there was any issue regarding over-pricing of goods or that the plaintiff ever gave any assurance to adjust any amount. It is claimed that since urgent interim relief was sought at the time of filing of the suit, therefore there is no violation of compliance of Sec. 12A of the CCA. Suit is claimed to be within limitation and this Court is also claimed to have jurisdiction.
5. It may be mentioned here that along with the suit, the plaintiff did file an application Under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC seeking attachment of properties of the defendant company, but that application was never pressed and never decided till now, as per the order sheets.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, following six issues were framed on 23.08.2022 :-
ISSUES "1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of ₹9,54,094/- along with interest from the defendant as alleged? OPP
2. Whether there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff? OPD
3. Whether suit is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties? OPD
4. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD
5. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for non-compliance of section 12- A of the Commercial Courts Act?
6. Relief."
7. In evidence, both the sides examined one witness each.
8. PW1 Mr. Devendra, the AR of the plaintiff company tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ext. PW1/A reiterating the averments of the plaint, and he relied upon five documents viz., the purchase order dated 10.11.2016 Ext. PW1/1; invoice dated 28.12.2016 Ext. PW1/2;
copy of sales tax assessment order passed by the concerned department Judgment CS (COMM) 751/2021 CNR No. DLWT01-00784-2021 ABS India Private Limited Vs. ABC Infosystems Private Limited Dated 02.12.2023 Page 5/16 6 of commercial taxes, Government of Karnataka Ext. PW1/3; copy of legal notice which was sent to the defendant through e-mail Ext. PW1/4 and resolution in favour of PW1 as Ext. PW1/5.
8.1. Out of the above mentioned exhibited documents, the defendant raised objection as to the mode of proof of Ext. PW1/3 & PW1/4. The said objection was not decided by the Court at that time and it is being decided now. So far as Ext. PW1/4 is concerned, vide e-mail dated 19.05.2021 the notice of even date as a PDF file attachment was sent to the defendants by the plaintiff. No certificate U/s 65B of the Evidence Act in support of this e-mail and its attachment has been proved on record by the plaintiff. Therefore Ext. PW1/4, being electronic evidence, is not proved in accordance with law and accordingly it is de- exhibited and cannot be relied by the plaintiff.
8.2. So far as Ext. PW1/3 is concerned, it is a copy of assessment order by the concerned tax department dated 24.07.2019 against the plaintiff. The assessment order being against the plaintiff and sent to the plaintiff by the department, the plaintiff was competent to prove it and objection of the defendant qua Ext. PW1/3 is accordingly over-ruled.
9. On the other hand, the defendant company examined its Managing Director, the Defendant no. 2, as DW1, who also tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ext. DW1/A reiterating the averments of the WS. DW1 relied upon the documents viz., resolution in his favour Ext. DW1/1; invoices and bills through which the defendant claims to have purchased similar goods through other suppliers as Ext. DW1/2 to DW1/5, along with certificate U/s 65B of the Evidence Act as Ext. DW1/6.
Judgment CS (COMM) 751/2021 CNR No. DLWT01-00784-2021 ABS India Private Limited Vs. ABC Infosystems Private Limited Dated 02.12.2023 Page 6/16 7
10. I have heard Ld. Counsels for both the sides. Their arguments are being discussed while deciding each individual issue as follows.
11. Before taking up the formal issues framed in this matter, let it be mentioned here that in the written statement the defendants also took up a plea that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction. No specific issue was framed by the Court qua it. It being a legal issue as to jurisdiction, is being dealt with here.
11.1. Admittedly, the office of the defendant company is located within the jurisdiction of this Court. U/s 20 of the CPC a suit for recovery of money can be filed in the Court within the jurisdiction of which the defendant, voluntarily resides, or carries on business or works for gain. Defendant company admittedly is working for gain within the jurisdiction of this Court. Defendant seems to have routinely taken up a defence of territorial jurisdiction just for the sake of it. During final arguments, the defendant did not even raise that issue and did not advance any arguments on the said point. The objection as to territorial jurisdiction is accordingly rejected.
12. The issue wise findings are as follows.
13. Issue no.2 "2. Whether there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff? OPD"
14. Even this issue seems to have been routinely raised by the defendant.
In its WS, the defendant claimed that there was no cause of action disclosed in favour of the plaintiff or against the defendants.
14.1. However, the plaint indeed reveals sufficient facts constituting cause of action claimed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. There Judgment CS (COMM) 751/2021 CNR No. DLWT01-00784-2021 ABS India Private Limited Vs. ABC Infosystems Private Limited Dated 02.12.2023 Page 7/16 8 is a valid contract of sale of goods between the parties as the defendant admits purchase order Ext. PW1/1 and supply of articles under invoice Ext. PW1/2. It is not in dispute that the goods were supplied under the said contract. The claim in the present suit is only regarding non- payment of part of the cost of goods and because of non-issuance of C Form. Admittedly, under the purchase order the cost of goods was inclusive of Central Sales Tax and therefore the defendant company was bound to provide Form C to the plaintiff to avail the concessional rates of tax, which according to the plaintiff the defendant company failed to provide and therefore the plaintiff had to pay the differential sales tax imposed by the Karnataka Sales Tax Department under Ext. PW1/3.
14.2. This issue is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
15. Issue no. 3
"3. Whether suit is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties? OPD"
15.1. The defendant raised an argument that D2 being the managing director of D1 company is neither a necessary, nor a proper party and therefore it should have not been impleaded as a defendant in this case. Law is well settled that the liability of a company in its business dealings with third party cannot impose a liability on the directors of the company except under certain circumstances. A director of a company cannot be made liable for third party contractual obligations of a company in the course of the business of the company. A company is a separate juristic entity which can be sued in its name and which can also sue independently in its name. Director of a company though owes a fiduciary duty to the company, but the directors do not owe any Judgment CS (COMM) 751/2021 CNR No. DLWT01-00784-2021 ABS India Private Limited Vs. ABC Infosystems Private Limited Dated 02.12.2023 Page 8/16 9 contractual duty / liability qua third parties in business dealings with the company. A director of company does not have any personal liability unless there is any specific indemnity / guarantee of the director pleaded and proved by plaintiff. In this regard, one may place reliance upon the cases of Tristar Consultants v. Vcustomer Services India Pvt. Ltd., 2007 SCC OnLine Del 359 and; Gurmeet Satwant Singh and Others Versus Meera Gupta and Another 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9505.
15.2. In the present case, neither in the pleadings nor in the evidence of plaintiff any averment has been made or deposition has been made that the D2 ever undertook to repay the price of the goods to the plaintiff or he ever under took any indemnity in that regard. The argument of the plaintiff that D2 being Managing Director/partner of D1 is a necessary party is erroneous. Merely because D2 appeared as a witness, signed the Vakalatnama cannot be a reason to impose liability upon D2 for the liability of the private limited company i.e. D1.
15.3. Issue no. 3 is accordingly in favour of D2 and against the plaintiff.
16. Issue no. 4
"4. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD"
17. In the written statement, the defendants took a plea that the suit is barred by limitation.
17.1. On the other hand, the case of the plaintiff is that as per purchase order Ext. PW1/1 the balance amount of 5% of the cost was to be adjusted in bank guarantee after expiry of warranty period. It is so mentioned in the purchase order issued by the defendant to the plaintiff. This purchase order has not been denied. In the affidavit of admission/denial of documents of the plaintiff, filed by the defendant on 14.03.2022 along Judgment CS (COMM) 751/2021 CNR No. DLWT01-00784-2021 ABS India Private Limited Vs. ABC Infosystems Private Limited Dated 02.12.2023 Page 9/16 10 with the WS, the defendant admitted the purchase order as well as the invoice. Perusal of the defence of the defendant reveals that parties are not at issue on the point that the purchase order Ext. PW1/1 dated 10.11.2016 was placed upon the plaintiff. Even it is not in dispute that invoice dated 28.12.2016 Ext. PW1/2 was raised by the plaintiff.
17.2. In the purchase order, the period of warranty mentioned is three years.
From the date of invoice, the period of three years qua warranty would continue till 28.12.2019. Therefore, the limitation to file the suit for non-payment of the 5% of the balance due would arise only after 28.12.2019. As mentioned above, the suit was initially filed on 18.10.2021.
17.3. Qua the amount relating to non-issuance of Form-C also the limitation would arise only after the defendant failed to issue the said Form and imposition of tax liability occurred against the plaintiff under Ext. PW1/3. Ext. PW1/3 reveals its date as 24.07.2019 raising tax liability upon the plaintiff. Therefore, qua this part of liability also, the suit is within limitation.
17.4. The claim of the plaintiff is under Article 14 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 for the price of the goods sold & delivered where no fixed period of credit is agreed upon. In this case, since the last installment of 5% of the price of goods was payable in November 2019 and thereafter the defendant company encashed the bank guarantee without payment of money, the plaintiff had three years from November 2019 to file the suit. The suit of the plaintiff is therefore within limitation.
Judgment CS (COMM) 751/2021 CNR No. DLWT01-00784-2021 ABS India Private Limited Vs. ABC Infosystems Private Limited Dated 02.12.2023 Page 10/16 11 17.5. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
18. Issue no. 5
"5. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for non-compliance of section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act?"
18.1. Admittedly, the plaintiff did not undergo pre-litigation in this case.
Defendant claims that therefore the suit is barred by Sec. 12A of the CC Act, which is a mandatory provision. In this regard, counsel for the defendant relies upon the case of Yamini Manohar Vs. T. K. D Keerthi decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 13.10.2023 in SLP (Civil) 32275 of 2023. It is argued by the defendant that the application Under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC filed by the plaintiff was a sham exercise and therefore the plaint ought to be rejected.
18.2. On the other hand, it is argued by the plaintiff that the plaintiff initially filed an ordinary suit in which there was no requirement of undergoing pre-litigation mediation and thereafter the Court of Ld. ADJ transferred the suit through the office of Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge and also that the apprehension of the plaintiff to file application Under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC was genuine since the defendant company did not respond to the notice and other request of the plaintiff to pay the amount and therefore the plaintiff had bonafidely filed that application. Plaintiff has relied upon the case of Anil Gupta Vs. Babu Ram Singhla CS (OS) 201/2020 in this regard.
18.3. No doubt, application Under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC was not pressed by the plaintiff at any stage of the matter. But then merely because the plaintiff did not press that application, it cannot be argued that the Judgment CS (COMM) 751/2021 CNR No. DLWT01-00784-2021 ABS India Private Limited Vs. ABC Infosystems Private Limited Dated 02.12.2023 Page 11/16 12 plaintiff filed that application as a sham exercise. At the stage of receipt of the suit before the Ld. Predecessor as a Commercial Court, the said application ought to have been considered by the Court by examining the prayer for that interim relief and the nature and subject matter of the suit. The Court also did not do it. A plaintiff cannot be made to suffer when the Court also did not dispose off that application. Indeed, plaintiff should have brought to the notice of the Court that any such application was pending, but then even the defendant never pointed it out to the Court about pendency of any such application.
18.4. While considering such an application for interim relief of urgent nature, the facts & circumstances of the case have to be considered holistically from the stand point of the plaintiff. At this stage of the matter, it cannot be said that the stand point of the plaintiff in preferring that application was in any manner a disguise or a sham exercise.
18.5. Even otherwise, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Patil Automation Private limited & Ors. Vs. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited AIR 2022 SC 3848, in para no. 84 observed that the mandate of Sec. 12A be followed effectively from 20.08.2022 onwards.
18.6. In such circumstances when the plaintiff had preferred the present suit initially as a non-commercial suit which came to be transferred and then it was followed by getting filed afresh plaint in compliance of the commercial Courts Act, particularly when the plaint was accompanied with an application seeking urgent interim relief Under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC which never came to be decided, it would be unfair to the plaintiff to reject the plaint at this final stage of the matter.
Judgment CS (COMM) 751/2021 CNR No. DLWT01-00784-2021 ABS India Private Limited Vs. ABC Infosystems Private Limited Dated 02.12.2023 Page 12/16 13 18.7. This issue is accordingly decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
19. Issue no. 1 "Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of ₹9,54,094/- along with interest from the defendant as alleged? OPP"
19.1. As mentioned above, the purchase order and the invoice Ext. PW1/1 & 1/2, respectively, are admitted documents. It is not denied that the plaintiff supplied the goods under the invoice in question. The fact of receipt of goods is not denied by the defendant. The defence of the defendant is that the plaintiff had over charged for the similar goods which the defendant could procure at a much lesser rate from other suppliers.
19.2. But then, neither at the time of raising of the invoice nor at any subsequent stage till this suit was filed, the defendant ever gave any communication to the plaintiff about it. Though the defendant claims that plaintiff was informed about the price and that plaintiff also assured to give credit of certain amount, but not even one communication so mentioning that the defendant ever communicated it to the plaintiff or the plaintiff ever admitted it, is filed or proved on record.
19.3. DW1 admitted that the defendant did not give any written reply to the notice of the plaintiff. Though the notice Ext. DW1/4, has been de- exhibited for the reasons mentioned above, but from the answer of DW1 in his cross-examination, it is clear that the defendant did receive some notice from the plaintiff. The fact of not giving any reply to the notice Judgment CS (COMM) 751/2021 CNR No. DLWT01-00784-2021 ABS India Private Limited Vs. ABC Infosystems Private Limited Dated 02.12.2023 Page 13/16 14 by the defendant and absence of any other documentary proof to support the plea of the defendant that it ever communicated the ground of over pricing to the plaintiff constrains this Court to hold this issue against the defendant.
19.4. When two parties agree qua supply of certain goods at a certain price, the receiver of the goods cannot subsequently claim that the rates charged were more than the market rate. After all, in its purchase order Ext. PW1/1 itself the defendant specified the unit price of each of the article inclusive of taxes. Thereafter, when the plaintiff raised the invoice after supplying the goods and the defendant not only received the goods without objection, but also utilised the goods, after several years the defendant cannot be permitted to raise the point that the defendant was able to procure similar goods from other vendors.
19.5. In his cross-examination DW1 also admitted that after three years the bank guarantee stood encashed in favour of the D1 company. Admittedly, the 5% of the amount payable under the purchase order Ext. PW1/1 was never paid to the plaintiff. Once the defendant purchased the goods from the plaintiff, the rule of caveat emptor would also apply against the defendant and it is the buyer who has to be aware. The defendant being a buyer after placing orders upon the plaintiff by specifically mentioning the unit price in its purchase order cannot claim that in the market similar goods were available from other vendors at a much lower rates.
19.6. Accordingly, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of ₹5,65,800/- from the defendant company towards 5% of the amount payable under the purchase order Ext. PW1/1 after lapse of the warranty period.
Judgment CS (COMM) 751/2021 CNR No. DLWT01-00784-2021 ABS India Private Limited Vs. ABC Infosystems Private Limited Dated 02.12.2023 Page 14/16 15
20. So far as claim of the plaintiff to recover the amount of ₹3,88,294/-
towards non-issuance of Form-C are concerned, though the defendant took a plea that the defendant has issued those Forms to the plaintiff, but admittedly no such documentary proof, either in the nature of copy of C Forms or any other document, has been proved by the defendant.
20.1. DW1 in his cross examination stated that he was not aware whether any copy of C Form have been filed in this suit at any stage of the matter. He claimed that he can produce those C Forms. But then at the stage of cross-examination of the defendant's witness, it was too late for the defendant to have claimed that C Forms were issued. Till this stage of the matter, no such document has been proved by the defendant.
20.2. Because of non-issuance of C Form to the plaintiff by the defendant which could have enabled the plaintiff to claim concessional sales tax, the plaintiff had to pay the said amount and therefore the defendant is liable to make good the plaintiff qua that amount.
20.3. Accordingly, the plaintiff is held entitled to even the amount of ₹3,88,294/- towards the said tax liability imposed on the plaintiff by the tax department under Ext. PW1/3.
21. Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant to the effect that the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of ₹9,54,094/- from the defendant no.1 company.
22. The question however is as to what rate of interest the plaintiff is entitled to on the said amount. Plaintiff has claimed interest @ 24% per annum. There is no stipulation of the rate of interest in the purchase order Ext. PW1/1. However, in the invoice Ext. PW1/2 there is a stipulation of charging 18% per annum on the delayed payment.
Judgment CS (COMM) 751/2021 CNR No. DLWT01-00784-2021 ABS India Private Limited Vs. ABC Infosystems Private Limited Dated 02.12.2023 Page 15/16 16 22.1. In the case of Cimmco Limited Versus Pramod Krishna Agrawal 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7289, it is held as follows;
"3. .........Hon'ble Supreme Court has now mandated that lower rates of interest be granted and therefore the pre-suit and also the pendente lite and future interest is liable to be reduced by this Court. Reliance is placed upon the judgments in the cases of Rajendra Construction Co. v. Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority, (2005) 6 SCC 678, McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd., (2006) 11 SCC 181, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Indag Rubber Ltd., (2006) 7 SCC 700, Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. G. Harischandra, (2007) 2 SCC 720 & State of Rajasthan v. Ferro Concrete Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 3 Arb. LR 140 (SC)."
22.2. In the given facts & circumstances of this case, interest of justice would be met if the plaintiff is awarded interest @ 7% per annum from 01.01.2020 till the date of realisation of the said decreed amount of ₹9,54,094/-.
23. RELIEF 23.1. Suit of the plaintiff is accordingly decreed against D1 company only for ₹9,54,094/- (Nine Lakh Fifty-Four Thousand Ninety-Four) with simple interest @ 7% per annum from 01.01.2020 till its realisation. Plaintiff shall also be entitled to the cost of the suit.
23.2. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. A copy of the judgment be supplied to the plaintiff as well as the defendant through electronic modes in compliance of Order 20 Rule 1(1) of CPC. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open Court
on 2nd day of December 2023. DIG
VINAY
Digitally signed
by DIG VINAY
SINGH
Date: 2023.12.02
SINGH 14:16:55 +0530
Dig Vinay Singh
District Judge (Commercial Court)-03,
West, Tis Hazari, Delhi (r)
Judgment CS (COMM) 751/2021 CNR No. DLWT01-00784-2021 ABS India Private Limited Vs. ABC Infosystems Private Limited Dated 02.12.2023 Page 16/16