Delhi District Court
M/S Grippers India vs Go Auto Pvt Limited / Treo Tata on 19 March, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. RAVINDER BEDI
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-12
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
In the matter of:-
CS (COMM) No. 2746/2019
M/s Grippers India
through its Proprietor Mr. Pradeep Rastogi
Having its office at :
Municipal No.850, D-5,
3rd Floor, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi-110084
........Plaintiff
Versus
1. Go Auto Pvt. Ltd. /Treo Tata
At : 111/9, Aruna Assaf Ali Marg,
Vasant Kunj, Delhi
Also At :
D-189, Maa Anandmayi Marg,
Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I,
D-Block Bus Stand, New Delhi-110020
2. Mr. Ajay Aggarwal
Director of Go Auto Pvt. Ltd.
At : A-231, Okhla Industries Area Phase-I,
New Delhi-110020 ......Defendants
Date of institution of suit : 21.11.2019
Date of final arguments : 05.03.2024
Date of final judgment : 19.03.2024
Plaintiff represented by Counsel Sh. Rahul Kumar
Defendants represented by Counsel Sh. Aditya Gupta.
CS (COMM) No.2746/2019 M/s Gripper India Vs. Go Auto Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 1/ 12
JUDGMENT
1. Present is a suit instituted by Plaintiff seeking recovery of Rs.3,42,829/- alongwith interest @18% pendente-lite and future against the Defendant.
2. Albeit briefly, the facts of the case as mentioned in the plaint are that Plaintiff- a registered partnership firm is engaged in the business of marketing, trading, distribution and selling of high quality chemicals for engine laminations, tyre id and glass etching etc. Plaintiff also provides car care products and related services by way of work contracts. The products of Plaintiff are in-line with the most demanding quality standards and its operations have secured appropriate quality certifications.
Defendant M/s Go Auto Private limited/Treo Tata is engaged in the business of manufacturing axles for motor vehicles, brakes, Gear box parts and related accessories. Mr. Ajay Aggarwal is the director of Defendant no.1 company, having its office at Aruna Asaf Ali Marg. On account of goodwill and reputation of Plaintiff, Defendants approached the Plaintiff at Plaintiff's registered office at Sant Nagar, Delhi. During negotiations, Plaintiff presented Price Quotations of its products/goods on 21.06.2018, 08.08.2018 and 26.09.2018 to the Defendants, which were duly accepted and acknowledged by Defendants. Plaint avers that the Defendant continued to maintain cordial business relations with Plaintiff and relying upon the representations and assurances, Plaintiff supplied variety of Car care products / goods and Work Contract services to Defendants. The Plaintiff raised many Invoices against supplies of CS (COMM) No.2746/2019 M/s Gripper India Vs. Go Auto Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 2/ 12 such products/goods taken by Defendant for the period from 01.08.2018 to 29.10.2018. The goods/products supplied to the Defendant by Plaintiff were duly delivered and acknowledged by the Defendants. The goods were delivered from Plaintiff's office at Sant Nagar, Delhi.
Plaint avers that Plaintiff has been maintaining a running and open account of Defendant in respect of payments. The Defendant became irregular in clearing pending payments and after continuous follow-up, he made part payment of Rs.35,026/- on 23.08.2018. Plaintiff also had an oral conversation with Defendant no.2 during which the Defendants admitted their liability. Defendants however, kept gaining time and assured Plaintiff to clear the debit note. Plaint avers that the subject matter of the suit is a "Commercial Dispute", as provided under Section 2(1)(c)(i) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Defendants are liable to pay an outstanding amount of Rs. 3,23,424.96/- alongwith an interest @ 18% totaling to Rs. 3,42,829/-.
3. It is pertinent to mention that by Order dated 28.11.2019, Ld. Predecessor deleted the name of Defendant no. 3 from array of parties. The summons were issued upon Defendant no. 1 & 2. The Defendants appeared through their advocate Ms. Shama Parveen and filed written statement. The Order dated 07.10.2021 would indicate that the application of Defendants under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of written statement was allowed and amended Written Statement alongwith Statement of truth was taken on record.
CS (COMM) No.2746/2019 M/s Gripper India Vs. Go Auto Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 3/ 12
4. Defendants in written statement, took preliminary objections to the suit and contended that the Plaintiff did not approach the court with clean hands and suppressed material facts; that at the beginning of the business, Plaintiff projected that it was the authorized dealer by TATA and that it had many other TATA dealers. After some time, Defendants came to know that Plaintiff was not authorised with any kind of TATA Dealership. There was no proof of work done by Plaintiff on the Cars for which Plaintiff was claiming amount. Plaintiff was indulged in malpractices and frauds at workshop and was not entitled for any amount.
5. On merits, the Defendants did not oppose the averments of para no. 1 to 3 of the plaint. Apropos para no. 4 of plaint, it was stated that instead of Defendants approaching Plaintiff, it was the Plaintiff who had approached the Defendants and convinced them by saying that they were approved by TATA Motors. It was contended that the Defendants had already made payment of Rs.35,026/- for the work, which was not completed by Plaintiff. The payment of Rs.35,026/- by Defendants shows that they were paying regularly to Plaintiff. It was denied that Defendants were liable to make payment as claimed. It is pertinent to observe that Written Statement has not been filed as per provisions of CPC applicable to of Commercial Courts Act, 2015. It also contains numerous typographical errors inter-alia at one point, it mentions "Further, it is wrong and denied Defendants clear all the due bills of the Plaintiff remaining is matter of record and documentary proof hence need no reply".
CS (COMM) No.2746/2019 M/s Gripper India Vs. Go Auto Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 4/ 12
6. By Order dated 13.01.2022, Ld. Predecessor settled the following issues for adjudication :-
i). Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.3,42,829/- (Rs.Three lakh Forty Two Thousand Eight hundred Twenty Nine only) from the Defendant ? OPP.
ii). Whether the Plaintiff has not been authorized/approved by TATA and what is the consequential effect of the same ? OPD-1 & D-3.
iii). Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to any interest @ 18% per annum and if so, on which amount and for which period? OPP.
iv). Who is entitled to the costs of the suit, against whom and in what quantum? Onus on parties.
v). Relief.
7. Plaintiff to prove his case examined Sh. Pradeep Rastogi as PW-1, who proved GST certificate as Ex. PW1/1; Price Quotation (OSR) as Ex. PW1/2; Invoice dated 01.08.2018 (OSR) as Ex.PW-1/3; Invoice no.55 dated 07.09.2018(OSR) as Ex.PW-1/4; Invoice no.56 dated
07.09.2018 (OSR) as Ex.PW-1/5; Invoice no.70 dated 04.10.2018 (OSR) as Ex.PW-1/6; Invoice no.71 dated 04.08.2018 (OSR) as Ex.PW-1/7; Invoice no.88 dated 29.10.2018 (OSR) as Ex.PW-1/8; Ledger from 01.04.2018 to 31.03.2019 as Ex.PW-1/9; the transcript of oral conversation with director of Defendant no.2 Mr. Ajay Aggarwal as Ex.PW-1/10; CD (in broken condition) of oral conversation with director of Defendant no.2 Mr. Ajay Aggarwal as Ex.PW-1/11 and Certificate under section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW-1/12.
CS (COMM) No.2746/2019 M/s Gripper India Vs. Go Auto Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 5/ 12
8. Defendants to prove its case examined Mr. Ajay Gandotra as DW-1 and Mr. Jagdeep Singh as DW-2. Both witnesses tendered their evidence by way of affidavits Ex. DW1/A and Ex.DW-2/A.
9. I have heard Ld. Counsel for parties and perused the entire record meticulously in the light of relevant statutory provisions of law. I have also looked into the written arguments filed by parties alongwith Judgments and citations relied upon in support of the submissions and my issue wise findings are as under :-
Issue no.2 Whether the plaintiff has not been authorized / approved by TATA and what is the consequential effect of the same ? OPD.
10. The onus to prove this issue was upon Defendants. The Defendants examined Mr. Ajay Gandotra, an Accountant as DW-1 who deposed by way of affidavit and stated that Plaintiff was continuously doing mal-practices and frauds at their workshop with all clients. DW-1 proved a letter Ex.DW-1/1 dated 23.11.2018 and stated that the same was handed-over to Mr. Mukesh, Executive of Plaintiff firm. He deposed that despite the said letter, Plaintiff continued to indulge in such activities. In cross-examination, DW-1 states that he joined the Defendants' company as an Accountant in May, 2019 and could depose only as per documents. DW-1 further states that he was told by Mr. Jagdeep, the then Workshop Manager of Defendants about the defendants having started business with Plaintiff believing that Plaintiff was authorized dealer of TATA.
CS (COMM) No.2746/2019 M/s Gripper India Vs. Go Auto Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 6/ 12
11. DW-2 though admits that Defendants had not verified or ascertained as to whether Plaintiff was authorized as such. DW-1 has no document to show himself working as an Accountant with Defendants' company nor is he privy to the transactions ; he joined only in May, 2019. Similar is the case of DW-2 Mr. Jagdeep Singh, Vice President of Defendants, who deposed that he has been in the Company since the year 2015. However, in his cross-examination, he admits that he has no document to show that he is employed with defendants. In such a scenario, the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 cannot be much relied upon being unworthy of any credence.
12. The primary contention of defendants was that Plaintiff was not authorized /approved from TATA. Firstly, Defendants have not filed any supporting document to show the same. It is also not explained as to how such non-authorization of plaintiff with TATA could be seen adversely viz-a-viz the claims of plaintiff. The defendants even other- wise have failed to show the relevancy of the said plea, which has remained only oral and bald, hence has to be eschewed from record. The plea does not in any manner affect the entitlement of the plaintiff for its claim of outstanding amount, in view of categorical admissions of the transactions between parties, as also evident from para no.6 of amended written statement, wherein the defendants took the stand that they were regularly paying the amount and also paid Rs.35,026/-, showing such regular payment.
CS (COMM) No.2746/2019 M/s Gripper India Vs. Go Auto Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 7/ 12
13. Another aspect of the matter is that the document Ex.DW- 2/1, though filed on record, has not been proved to be served by Defendants upon Plaintiff. The Ex.DW-2/1 is authored by DW-2. Testimony of DW-2 shows that he handed-over the same to Mr. Mukesh, Executive of Plaintiff firm. The said executive from Plaintiff firm has not been examined by Defendants. Hence, Ex.DW-2/1 seems to be only a self-serving document. Equally untenable is the plea that Plaintiff did not complete work on the vehicles, on account of which the amount was claimed in absence of any evidence. Having observed thus, since the Defendants have remained unable to establish the plea, the issue stands answered against defendants and in favour of Plaintiff.
Issue no.1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.3,42,829/- (Rs.Three lakh Forty Two Thousand Eight hundred Twenty Nine only) from the Defendant ? OPP.
Issue no.3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to any interest @ 18% per annum and if so, on which amount and for which period?OPP.
Issue no.4. Who is entitled to the costs of the suit, against whom and in what quantum? Onus on parties.
14. The onus of proving these issues was upon the Plaintiff. PW-1 Mr. Pradeep Rastogi, Proprietor of plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and reiterated the facts as in his plaint. PW-1 stated that total 6 CS (COMM) No.2746/2019 M/s Gripper India Vs. Go Auto Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 8/ 12 Invoices Ex.PW-1/3 to Ex.PW-1/8 were raised against orders for the period from 01.08.2018 uptil 29.10.2018. PW-1 deposed that by way of price quotation Ex.PW-1/2, parties had negotiated and plaintiff started supplying car-care products and would raise Invoices from time to time. PW-1 stated that Defendants went irregular in clearing the payment and only after regular follow-up that they made a paltry sum of Rs.35,026/- on 23.08.2018.
15. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff draws my attention to the incoherencies and errors in written statement of Defendants. Ld. Counsel submits that in view of admission of transactions and having paid part amount against work done/goods supplied by plaintiff, Defendants cannot deny their claims and plaintiff is entitled for the amount prayed. Ld. Counsel would submit that once having utilized/accepted the goods without intimating the seller (plaintiff) of any objection, the same are deemed to be accepted and hence the liability arises. Ld. Counsel would submit that once the Invoices were raised and after having received such goods, defendants cannot avoid their liability on flimsy and sham pleas. To buttress his submissions, ld. counsel has relied upon Judgments of SCJ Plastics Ltd. Vs. Creative Wares Ltd. (DOD 24.07.2012; B.L. Kashyap and Sons Ltd. Vs. M/s. JMS Steels and Power Corporation & Anr (DOD 18.01.2022) ; M/s. Lohmann Rausher Gmbh. Vs. M/s. Medisphere Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (DOD 13.01.2005); Mohanlal Manilal Vs. Firm Dhirubhai Bavajibhai and M/s Star Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. M/s. Beharilal Madanlal Jaipuria Ltd. & Ors. (DOD 16.12.2021).
CS (COMM) No.2746/2019 M/s Gripper India Vs. Go Auto Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 9/ 12
16. Per contra, ld. Counsel for defendants argued that Plaintiff failed to establish through any evidence as to the Work done by them. Ld. Counsel argued that Plaintiff was guilty of mal-practices and frauds at Work-shop of Defendants. Ld. Counsel referred to the testimony of plaintiff's witnesses to argue that in the absence of any proof of work done, plaintiff was disentitled for the releifs.
17. After having carefully mulled over the record, I find that the claim of the Plaintiff is based upon 6 Invoices Ex.PW-1/3 to Ex.PW-1/8 for the period from 01.08.2018 uptil 29.10.2018 during which Plaintiff is stated to have supplied goods to Defendants. The ledger Account Ex.PW- 1/9 maintained by plaintiff for the relevant period shows an outstanding balance of Rs.3,23,424.96/- as on 29.10.2019. Defendants have failed to come up with anything in rebuttal to prove the allegations of having paid the amount. The oral submissions of Counsel for Defendants therefore, are only noted to be rejected. The ratio of the Judgments relied upon by the plaintiff is squarely applicable to the factual matrix. The assertions of the plaintiff that it had delivered goods against Invoices has not been denied by Defendants. The payment conditions and description of goods stand reflected in the Invoices and therefore, fall within the category of written contract. Once the goods were retained by defendants, as per Section-42 of the Sale of Goods Act, these are deemed to be accepted in the absence of any intimation of objection and defendants are liable to make such payment.
CS (COMM) No.2746/2019 M/s Gripper India Vs. Go Auto Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 10/ 12 In view of my findings as above, I hold that the Plaintiff company has been successful in establishing its claim for recovery against Defendants. The issues stand answered in favour of plaintiff.
Interest
18. Plaintiff has also claimed an interest @ 18 % p.a. on the amount pendent-lite and future. Hon'ble Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Pt. Munshi Ram & Associates (P) Ltd. V. DDA, 2010 SCC Online Del 2444 has held that higher rates of interest, which are against public policy, can be struck down by the Courts. The said Judgment was relied upon in the R.F.A. No.823 of 2004 titled as Shri Sanjay Mittal Versus Sunil Jain (decided on 07.12.2018). Keeping in mind the ratio of the same, the interest of justice would be served if Plaintiff is granted pendente-lite simple rate of interest @ 8% and future simple rate of interest @ 12% p.a till realization. Applying priori and posteriori reasoning, I hold that plaintiff has been able to prove its case against defendants for an amount of Rs.3,23,425/- along-with interest as declared above.
Relief
19. From the discussion as adumbrated herein-above, I hereby pass the following:
a) A decree for the sum of Rs.3,23,425/- (Rupees Three Lakh Twenty Three Thousand Four Hundred Twenty Five Only) is passed in favour of Plaintiff and against Defendants alongwith interest @ CS (COMM) No.2746/2019 M/s Gripper India Vs. Go Auto Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 11/ 12 8% p.a. from the date of filing of suit till date of judgment and further interest @12% p.a. post judgment till its realization.
b) The costs of the suit alongwith pleader's fee is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Decree-sheet be prepared and file be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by RAVINDER BEDI RAVINDER Date: BEDI Announced in open 2024.03.19 15:12:33 Court on 19.03.2024 +0530 (Ravinder Bedi) District Judge (Commercial Court)-12 Central District, Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi CS (COMM) No.2746/2019 M/s Gripper India Vs. Go Auto Pvt. Ltd. Page no. 12/ 12