Delhi District Court
M/S Richa Global Exports Pvt Ltd vs M/S Print Fab India Pvt. Ltd on 22 August, 2024
:: 1 ::
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUDHANSHU KAUSHIK :
DISTRICT JUDGE-06 : WEST DISTRICT :
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
CIV DJ NO. 611394/2016
CNR NO. DLWT01-000104-2009
IN THE MATTER OF :-
M/S PRINT FAB INDIA PVT. LTD.
THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR
SH. KULDEEP KUMAR SAKHUJA
46/8, FIRST FLOOR, EAST PATEL NAGAR,
NEW DELHI-110008
.....PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
M/S RICHA GLOBAL EXPORTS PVT. LTD.
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR/
COMPETENT AUTHORITY
A-41, MAYAPURI INDUSTRIAL AREA,
PHASE-I, NEW DELHI-110064
.....DEFENDANT
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 05.06.2009
DATE OF FINAL ARGUMENT : 22.08.2024
DATE OF ORDER : 22.08.2024
DECISION : SUIT DECREED
______________________________________________________
Civ. DJ 611394/2016 & Page 1 of 24
Counter Claim No.39/2024
:: 2 ::
COUNTER CLAIM NO.39/2024
CNR NO.DLWT01-007147-2024
IN THE MATTER OF :-
M/S RICHA GLOBAL EXPORTS PVT. LTD.
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR/
COMPETENT AUTHORITY
A-41, MAYAPURI INDUSTRIAL AREA,
PHASE-I, NEW DELHI-110064 .....CLAIMANT
VERSUS
M/S PRINT FAB INDIA PVT. LTD.
THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR
SH. KULDEEP KUMAR SAKHUJA
46/8, FIRST FLOOR, EAST PATEL NAGAR,
NEW DELHI-110008
.....RESPONDENT
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 03.04.2012
DATE OF FINAL ARGUMENT : 22.08.2024
DATE OF ORDER : 22.08.2024
DECISION : CLAIM DISMISSED
JUDGMENT
1. This is a common judgment in respect of a suit for the recovery of money and a counter-claim. The suit as well as the counter-claim has been filed on the basis of the statement of ledger accounts.
Plaint/ Plaintiff's Version
2. The brief facts, as disclosed in the plaint, are;
Civ. DJ 611394/2016 & Page 2 of 24 Counter Claim No.39/2024:: 3 ::
A) Plaintiff M/s Print Fab India Private Limited is stated to be a company incorporated under The Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at premises No. 46/ 8, First Floor, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008. It is engaged in the business of carrying out printing work on readymade garments.
B) Defendant M/s Richa Global Exports Private Limited is also a Company incorporated under The Companies Act having its registered office at premises No. A-41, Maya Puri Industrial Area Phase-I, New Delhi-110064.
Defendant's factories are located at various places including the one at Gurugram (Haryana), Mayapuri (New Delhi) and Noida (Uttar Pradesh).
C) It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant approached it during the course of business and placed work orders between the period from 03.07.2006 to 06.11.2007. The work orders were placed by the defendant from its factories at different locations. Plaintiff claims to have executed the work orders and delivered the finished goods to the defendant. Invoices were raised and the same were also duly forwarded to the defendant along with the finished goods. Defendant acknowledged the delivery of goods but failed to pay the billed amount. D) Plaintiff has claimed that it was maintaining two separate running accounts of the defendant; first one, in Civ. DJ 611394/2016 & Page 3 of 24 Counter Claim No.39/2024 :: 4 ::
respect of the work orders received from the factory at Gurugram (Haryana) and; second one, in respect of work orders received from the factories at Mayapuri (New Delhi) and Noida (Uttar Pradesh). Plaintiff has alleged that according to the statement of the ledger accounts, a sum of Rs.8,90,827/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Ninety Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty Seven only) was due on 07.12.2007 in respect of the work orders received from the Gurugram factory while a sum of Rs.9,67,300.50/- (Rupees Nine Lakh Sixty Seven Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty Paise only) was due on 31.03.2008 in respect of the work orders from the factories at Mayapuri and Noida.
E) Plaintiff requested defendant on various occasions to clear the outstanding amount but it did not yield result.
Plaintiff also issued a legal notice dated 09.04.2009 to the defendant asking it to clear the outstanding amount but the position remained same. Hence, the present suit.
Suit initially filed under Order XXXVII of CPC
3. The suit was initially filed under Order XXXVII of CPC, however, the application filed by the defendant seeking leave to defend was allowed vide order dated 19.03.2011. In terms of the said order, defendant was granted leave to defend the suit subject to furnishing of a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.18,58,128/- (Rupees Civ. DJ 611394/2016 & Page 4 of 24 Counter Claim No.39/2024 :: 5 ::
Eighteen Lac Fifty Eight Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Eight only). Defendant furnished the bank guarantee and filed the written statement.
Written Statement/ Defendant's Version
4. Defendant admitted having placed the work orders with the plaintiff but claimed to have made the entire payment in respect of those orders. Defendant claimed that certain pieces of the finished goods were rejected as the same were found to be of sub-standard quality. Defendant alleged that each job work used to be of different style and specification. Defendant claimed that 354 pieces of the finished goods of style No. HK-73556 were rejected and a debit note bearing No. 1000177 dated 31.10.2007 was issued to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.1,89,390/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Nine Thousand and Three Hundred only).
It alleged that in a similar manner, 485 pieces of style No. 7590 were rejected for the same reason against which a debit note No. 0700207 dated 31.07.2007 was raised against the plaintiff.
4.1 Defendant alleged that plaintiff not only supplied sub-standard goods but also delayed the supply of finished goods. Defendant claimed that it is engaged in the business of exporting readymade garments in a time bound manner.
Civ. DJ 611394/2016 & Page 5 of 24 Counter Claim No.39/2024:: 6 ::
Defendant alleged that in its line of trade, as a common trade practice, the freight charges of the goods timely delivered by ship are borne by the buyer while, in cases where the delayed shipments are delivered by air, the delivery charges needs to be borne by the seller. Defendant claimed that it had to bear freight charges of certain delayed shipments and for that, debit notes were issued to the plaintiff. Defendant disputed the ledger accounts of the plaintiff and claimed that the same do not depict the correct position. Defendant has claimed that it was also maintaining plaintiff's statement of account, which reflects the true picture. Defendant has disclosed that in terms of the said statement of account, no amount remains due towards the plaintiff.
4.2 Defendant alleged that plaintiff is not entitled to receive any amount and rather, the plaintiff is under an obligation to pay certain amount. Defendant has alleged that after adjusting the debit notes issued in respect of the rejected goods and air freight charges, plaintiff is liable to pay a sum of Rs.6,38,700.39/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Thirty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty Nine Paise Only). Although, defendant mentioned these facts in the initial written statement but did not prefer any counter claim to recover the said amount. However, subsequently, Civ. DJ 611394/2016 & Page 6 of 24 Counter Claim No.39/2024 :: 7 ::
defendant moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking the amendment of the written statement and the same was allowed vide order dated 06.03.2013. In terms of the amendment, defendant incorporated the counter claim in the written statement. Thereafter, the plaintiff also amended the plaint by filing an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, which was allowed vide order dated 01.12.2015. By seeking the amendment, plaintiff incorporated 'better particulars' in the plaint. Defendant filed amended written statement-cum-counter claim to the amended plaint.
Issues
5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :
Issue in the suit (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the money decree to the tune of Rs.18,58,128/- as prayed for? OPP (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest, if yes, at what rate and for what period? OPP Issue in the counter claim (3) Whether the defendant is entitled to a decree against the plaintiff in respect to the overdue amount of Rs.6,38,700.39/- against the plaintiff as prayed for?
OPD Civ. DJ 611394/2016 & Page 7 of 24 Counter Claim No.39/2024 :: 8 ::
(4) Whether the suit has been filed without cause of action? OPD (5) Whether the defendant is entitled for interest, if yes, at what rate and for what period? OPD (6) Relief.
Plaintiff's Evidence
6. Plaintiff examined only one witness.
7. PW-1/Kuldeep Kumar Sakhuja, Director of the plaintiff, supported the contents of the plaint by filing his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.PW1/A). He tendered the following documents;
(a) Certified copy of the resolution dated 31.03.2009 passed by the Board of Directors whereby PW-1 has been authorized to file the suit (Ex.PW1/1);
(b) Certificate of incorporation (Ex.PW1/2);
(c) Inward challans for the goods received from the defendant for carrying out the job work (Ex.PW1/3) (colly);
(d) Outward delivery challans of the finished goods delivered to the defendant (Ex.PW1/4) (colly);
(e) Invoices raised by the plaintiff in respect of the printing job (Ex.PW1/5) (colly);
(f) Statement of account of defendant (Ex.PW1/6);
(g) Legal Notice dated 09.04.2009 (Ex.PW1/7);
(h) Postal receipt (Ex.PW1/8 and Ex.PW1/9);
Civ. DJ 611394/2016 & Page 8 of 24 Counter Claim No.39/2024:: 9 ::
(i) Original U.P.C receipt (Ex.PW1/10);
Defendant's Evidence
8. Defendant also examined only one witness.
9. DW-1/ Praveen Kapoor, Authorized Representative of defendant filed his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.DW1/A) and relied on the following documents:
(a) Board Resolution dated 06.07.2009 (Ex.DW1/1);
(b) Statement of account of plaintiff as maintained in the books of defendant (Ex.DW1/2);
(c) Two separate debit notes in respect of rejected goods which were found to be of sub-standard quality (Ex.DW1/3 and Ex.PW1/4);
(d) Five debit notes purportedly issued by the defendant in respect of the freight charges (Ex.DW1/4 to Ex.DW1/9);
(e) Copies of export invoices, airways bill and air freight bills (Ex.DW1/10) (colly);
(f) Credit Notes against rejection (Ex.DW1/7 & Ex.DW1/12);
(g) Credit Notes against air freight charges (Ex.DW1/13 to Ex.DW1/17);
(h) Letters dated 07.07.2008 and 17.02.2009 (Ex.DW11/8 and Ex.DW1/19);Civ. DJ 611394/2016 & Page 9 of 24 Counter Claim No.39/2024
:: 10 ::
(i) Legal Notice dated 15.04.2009 issued by the defendant to the plaintiff (Ex.DW1/20);
(j) Legal Notice dated 21.05.2009 issued by the defendant to the plaintiff (Ex.DW1/21);
Arguments
10. Arguments were heard.
Arguments advanced on behalf of plaintiff
11. Counsel for plaintiff argued that plaintiff has established its claim. He contended that defendant has admitted having received the finished goods. He submitted that plaintiff used to perform the printed work and return the goods to the defendant. He mentioned that plaintiff used to raise invoices in respect of the job work and defendant has admitted these invoices in the affidavit of admission & denial. He argued that defendant has taken a false and baseless plea that the finished goods were of sub- standard quality. He mentioned that defendant has failed to lead evidence to substantiate the submissions that some of the finished goods were rejected after being found of inferior quality. He contended that the invoices and part payments were duly reflected in the statement of accounts. He argued that defendant is under a legal obligation to pay the outstanding amount and the suit should be decreed. He Civ. DJ 611394/2016 & Page 10 of 24 Counter Claim No.39/2024 :: 11 ::
has argued that defendant has failed to establish the allegations leveled in the counter claim and the same should be dismissed.
Arguments advanced on behalf of defendant
12. On the other hand, counsel for defendant argued that plaintiff has failed to establish its claim and the suit should be dismissed. He mentioned that the printing work performed by the plaintiff was of inferior quality. He contended that certain goods were rejected as the printing work was of sub-standard quality. He stated that debit notes were issued in respect of the rejected goods but the plaintiff concealed this fact from the court. He argued that plaintiff failed to supply the finished goods within the agreed time schedule. He mentioned that on account of said reason, defendant was constrained to deliver certain consignments by air and bear the freight charges of those consignments. He stated that debit notes were issued by the defendant in respect of the freight charges and the same were adjusted against the outstanding amount. He mentioned that a meeting took place between the parties on 14.12.2007 wherein the accounts were reconciled and it was found that plaintiff is liable to pay a sum of Rs.6,38,700.39/- to the defendant. He mentioned that plaintiff is not liable to receive any amount from the defendant as the entire payment has already been made.
Civ. DJ 611394/2016 & Page 11 of 24 Counter Claim No.39/2024:: 12 ::
He contended that plaintiff is liable to pay the amount found due after the reconciliation of the accounts and the counter claim may be decreed. In order to support its submissions, defendant placed reliance on the decision in the matters of Madras Cement Ltd. Vs. T.M.T. Kannammal Education Trust MANU/TN/2819/2014, Sait Tarajee Khimchand & Ors. Vs. Yelamarti Satyam & Anr. MANU/SC/0022/1971, Arakkan Narayan Vs. Indian Handloom Traders & Ors. MANU/KE/0518/1999, Ishwar Das (Dead) through LRs Vs. Sohan Lal (Dead) through LRs MANU/SC/0747/1999 and Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. V.C. Shukla & Ors.
MANU/SC/0168/1998,
13. I have perused the record in the light of respective arguments.
Issue-wise findings
14. The issue-wise findings are as under:-
Issue No. 1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the money decree to the tune of Rs.18,58,128/- as prayed for? OPP
15. The onus of this issue was placed on the plaintiff. It is case of the plaintiff that defendant used to place orders Civ. DJ 611394/2016 & Page 12 of 24 Counter Claim No.39/2024 :: 13 ::
for the printing work and it used to perform the work and deliver the finished goods to the defendant. Plaintiff used to raise invoices in respect of the printing work and deliver the finished goods to the defendant against delivery challans. Defendant has not disputed this fact. Defendant admitted that plaintiff raised invoices in respect of the finished goods and also admitted having received all the goods. This inference has been drawn on the basis of admissions made by the defendant in the written statement as well as in the affidavit of admission and denial. The written statement contains an admission that the finished goods were supplied by the plaintiff and the same were duly received by the defendant.
16. PW-1 stepped into the witness box and deposed that all the goods mentioned in the delivery challans were duly delivered to the plaintiff. Defence Counsel has not put any suggestion to the witness to dispute this aspect. The deposition of the witness that all the finished goods were duly delivered to the defendant has remained unrebutted. Defendant has not disputed the authenticity of the invoices whose entries were made in the statement of account. Admittedly, it is not the defence raised by the defendant that there was any shortage of supply or that the plaintiff did not deliver the goods as mentioned in the delivery Civ. DJ 611394/2016 & Page 13 of 24 Counter Claim No.39/2024 :: 14 ::
challans. The entire controversy revolves around the defence taken by the defendant that some finished goods were of inferior quality and certain consignments were not supplied by the plaintiff within the agreed time schedule.
17. Defendant has claimed in the written statement that plaintiff supplied sub-standard goods. Defendant has also claimed that it had to bear freight charges in respect of the delayed consignments. Defendant has alleged that debit notes were raised in respect of the sub-standard goods and the freight charges. It was the version of the defendant that a meeting was held on 14.12.2007 wherein the accounts were reconciled. Defendant has claimed that this meeting was attended by the authorized representatives of both the parties. It has been alleged by the defendant that after reconciliation of accounts, parties arrived at a consensus in the meeting that plaintiff shall be liable to pay a sum of Rs.6,38,700.39/- to the defendant. Thus, the controversy boils down to the following aspects; (i) whether plaintiff supplied sub-standard goods to the defendants?; (ii) whether the plaintiff delayed the supply of certain consignments?; (iii) whether the delayed consignments were dispatched by the defendant to its customer by air?;
(iv) whether defendant had to bear the freight charges of the delayed consignments?; and (v) whether the parties Civ. DJ 611394/2016 & Page 14 of 24 Counter Claim No.39/2024 :: 15 ::
reconciled the accounts in the alleged meeting dated 14.12.2007?
18. Record shows that plaintiff discharged the initial onus by placing on record the invoices as well as the statement of accounts. Defendant did not dispute the fact that the goods were duly delivered by the plaintiff. In such circumstances, the onus of establishing the fact that the plaintiff supplied sub-standard goods shifted on the defendant. Defendant claimed that he suffered losses on account of sub-standard goods and delayed consignments. He further claimed that he had to bear the freight charges of the delayed consignments. Defendant has alleged that as a common trade practice, the freight charges of the goods are usually borne by the buyer but in case of delayed consignments, the freight charges need to be borne by the seller. It can be seen from the record that defendant has not led any evidence to prove these allegations. There is no evidence to demonstrate that the parties agreed upon a given time frame for completion of the printing work. Admittedly, there was no written agreement to this effect and defendant has not led any evidence to establish that there was a time line for delivering the finished goods.
Civ. DJ 611394/2016 & Page 15 of 24 Counter Claim No.39/2024:: 16 ::
19. DW-1 admitted in cross-examination that no document has been placed on record to show that the finished goods delivered by the plaintiff were of inferior quality. He stated in cross-examination that no written complaint was lodged with the plaintiff in respect of the quality of the finished goods. He further admitted that there was no written contract to the effect that plaintiff would bear the freight charges, in case, the consignments are delayed on account of the delay in delivery of the finished goods. He stated that no written complaint was made to the plaintiff about the delay in the delivery of the finished goods. Record reveals that there is not even an iota of evidence to substantiate the allegations of the defendant.
20. The only material placed on record by the defendant is the debit notes purportedly issued by him in respect of the inferior quality goods and the air freight charges. I have perused these debit notes. I am in complete agreement with the arguments of the plaintiff that these unilaterally prepared documents cannot be taken as a substitute for evidence. There is no evidence to show that the debit notes were communicated or handed over to the plaintiff at any point of time. There is also no evidence to demonstrate that defendant lodged any complaint with the Civ. DJ 611394/2016 & Page 16 of 24 Counter Claim No.39/2024 :: 17 ::
plaintiff that the finished goods were of sub-standard quality.
21. The relationship between a buyer and seller of goods is governed by the provisions of the Sales of Goods Act, 1930 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act'). Section 31 of Act states that it is the duty of seller to deliver the goods and of the buyer to accept and pay for them in accordance with the terms of contract of sales. Section 32 of the Act states that unless otherwise agreed, delivery of the goods and payments of the prices are concurrent conditions. Section 33 of the Act explains delivery of goods by mentioning that delivery may be made by doing anything which the party agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of buyer or any person authorized to hold the goods on his behalf. Section 37 of the Act states that where the seller delivers to the buyer a quantity of goods less than he contracted to sell, the buyer may reject them but if the buyer accepts the goods so delivered, he shall pay for them at the contract rate. Section 42 of the Act states that the buyer is deem to have accepted the goods when he intimates to the seller that the has accepted them, or when the goods have been delivered to him and he does not act in relation to them, which is inconsistent with the ownership Civ. DJ 611394/2016 & Page 17 of 24 Counter Claim No.39/2024 :: 18 ::
of the seller, or when, after the lapse of reasonable time, he retains the goods without intimating to the seller that he has rejected them. It has been held in the matter of "Showman Raucher GMBL Vs. Medisphere MKT. PVT. Ltd." 117 2005 DLT 95 that a long gap after which goods are ostensibly rejected on the ground that they are defective or sub-standard is clearly fatal.
22. Coming back to the present matter. Record indicates that plaintiff supplied the finished goods to the defendant and raised invoices. Defendant kept making part payment to the plaintiff. The part payments stand duly reflected in the statement of accounts. Defendant has failed to place on record even a single correspondence to show that he rejected the delivery of the finished goods, at any point of time, on account of the reason that the same were found to be of sub-standard quality. There is no evidence to support the bald averments of the defendant that plaintiff supplied sub-standard goods.
23. As observed in the preceding paras, there is no evidence to establish that the finished goods supplied by the plaintiff were either of inferior quality or there was delay in supplying the same. Defendant has not led evidence to substantiate this line of defence. The bald plea taken by him in the written statement does not establish that plaintiff Civ. DJ 611394/2016 & Page 18 of 24 Counter Claim No.39/2024 :: 19 ::
either supplied sub-standard goods or caused delay in supplying the finished goods. On the other hand, the admission made by the defendant, coupled with the unrebutted testimony of plaintiff's witness, establishes that defendant failed to make the entire payment in respect of the finished goods. Plaintiff has stated that he was maintaining a ledger account of defendant wherein the invoices raised and the payment received were duly reflected. The statements of accounts have been placed on record. PW-1 has deposed that the books of account were regularly kept in the ordinary course of business. The entries in the books of accounts regularly kept in the course of business are relevant under Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act. The fact that the delivery was made and the invoices were raised has not been disputed by the defendant. Defendant has not disputed the correctness of the statements of accounts. The statements of accounts of the defendant show the outstanding amount.
24. Now coming to the stand of defendant that parties reconciled the account in a meeting held on 14.12.2007. Defendant claimed that the accounts were reconciled in the meeting held on 14.12.2007. Defendant alleged in the written statement that this meeting was attended by the authorized representatives of both the parties. Record Civ. DJ 611394/2016 & Page 19 of 24 Counter Claim No.39/2024 :: 20 ::
shows that the minutes of the alleged meeting have not been placed on record. DW-1 stated in cross-examination that the minutes of the meeting were not signed by the Directors of the plaintiff company. He claimed that the Directors of the plaintiff left the meeting without signing the minutes. There is no reliable evidence to substantiate the stand of the defendant that a meeting of the authorized representatives of the parties took place on 14.12.2007 and the accounts were reconciled in the meeting. Admittedly, DW-1/ Praveen Kapoor did not attend the said meeting and none of the other persons, who were purportedly present in the meeting, have been examined. In view of this, the defence that parties arrived at a settlement during a meeting held on 14.12.2007 deserves to be rejected.
25. Record further indicates that defendant has led no evidence to establish that there was a usual custom of trade to the effect that the freight charges of the delayed consignment shall be borne by the supplier. Admittedly, there was no written contract between the parties that the plaintiff would bear the freight charges of the delayed consignments. It may be noted that defendant has also failed to establish that the consignments were not timely delivered by the plaintiff. Even if it is taken that plaintiff delayed certain consignments, still, in the absence of any Civ. DJ 611394/2016 & Page 20 of 24 Counter Claim No.39/2024 :: 21 ::
contract or an agreement, defendant cannot burden the plaintiff with the freight charges. This line of defence also deserves to be rejected.
26. In view of the discussions made in the aforementioned paras, plaintiff has established its claim. Accordingly, issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue No. 2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest, if yes, at what rate and for what period? OPP
27. In view of the findings given in respect of issue no. 1, it stands established that plaintiff is entitled to recover the outstanding amount from the defendant. Coming to the aspect of interest on the outstanding amount. The payment of interest on the outstanding amount is essentially compensatory in nature. It has been held in the matter of "Secretary, Irrigation Department, Govt. of Orissa & Ors. Vs G.C.Roy" 1992 (1) SCC 508 that a person deprived of the use of money to which he is legitimately entitled has a right to be compensated and such compensation may be called interest.
28. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed in the matter of "Central Bank of India Vs Ravindra" 2002 1 SCC 367 that a person is entitled to compensation for the Civ. DJ 611394/2016 & Page 21 of 24 Counter Claim No.39/2024 :: 22 ::
deprivation of the money due to the creditor which was not paid, or, in other words, was withheld from him by the debtor after the time when payment should have been made. Since, defendant has withheld the outstanding amount of invoices, plaintiff is certainly entitled to interest on the amount due. However, the interest claimed by the plaintiff at the rate of 24% per annum appears to be on higher side. Plaintiff has not placed on record any evidence to show that there was any agreement between the parties that the interest at such a high rate shall be charged on the delayed payment. Considering the fact that it was a commercial transaction, the interest at the rate of 12% per annum would meet the ends of justice and the same is being awarded on the principal outstanding amount of Rs.18,58,128/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakh Fifty Eight Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Eight only) from the date of legal notice dated 09.04.2009 till realization.
Finding on issues in the counter claim.
Issue No.3: Whether the defendant is entitled to a decree against the plaintiff in respect to the overdue amount of Rs.6,38,700.39/- against the plaintiff as prayed for? OPD Issue No.4: Whether the suit has been filed without cause of action? OPD Civ. DJ 611394/2016 & Page 22 of 24 Counter Claim No.39/2024 :: 23 ::
Issue No.5: Whether the defendant is entitled for interest, if yes, at what rate and for what period? OPD
29. All the issues are taken up together as they are inter-
connected. Plaintiff filed the present suit seeking recovery of the outstanding amount for the printing work carried out in respect of the work orders placed by the defendant. The outstanding amount was duly reflected in the statements of accounts of the defendant. There was a valid cause of action for filing the suit.
30. Plaintiff has established its claim while on the other hand, defendant has failed to demonstrate that it is entitled to recover the alleged amount of Rs.6,38,700.39/- from the plaintiff. Defendant's claim is based on the debit notes and the alleged settlement arrived at in the meeting dated 14.12.2007. It has been observed in the preceeding paras that there is on evidence to establish that such a meeting took place between the parties. The unilateral debit notes prepared by the defendant are of no consequences. These debit notes were never sent to the plaintiff. Defendant has failed to establish the allegations leveled in the counter claim. Since, defendant is not entitled to receive any amount from the plaintiff, therefore, the question of granting interest on the outstanding amount does not arise.
Civ. DJ 611394/2016 & Page 23 of 24 Counter Claim No.39/2024:: 24 ::
In view of this, issues No. 3 to 5 of the counter claim are decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
Relief
31. In view of the discussion in the aforesaid paragraphs, the counter claim is dismissed and the suit stands decreed in favour of plaintiff with the following reliefs:-
(a) A decree for a sum of Rs.18,58,128/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakh Fifty Eight Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Eight only).
(b) Interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the decreetal amount from the date of legal notice dated 09.04.2009 till realization.
(c) Cost of the suit.
32. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
33. File be consigned to record room, after necessary compliance.
Announced in open Court on 22.08.2024 (Sudhanshu Kaushik) District Judge-06 (West) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/22.08.2024 Civ. DJ 611394/2016 & Page 24 of 24 Counter Claim No.39/2024