Delhi District Court
Springer Verlag Gmbh vs Suman Chaudhary on 3 September, 2024
In the Court of Shri Naresh Kumar Laka
District Judge - 07, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi
CS DJ 615600/2016
CNR NO.DLCT01001055-2012
In the matter of:
Springer Verlag Gmbh
Office At: Heidelberger Platz
3 14197 Berlin, Germany
..... Plaintiff
VERSUS
Suman Chaudhary
Sole Proprietor of
INSAT Books & Periodicals,
Onkar House, 4575/15
Main Aggarwal Road,
Daryaganj, Delhi
Also At ZS-18, Shiva Enclave
A-4, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110063
..... Defendant
Date of Institution of suit : 15.05.2012
Arguments concluded on : 05.08.2024
Date of decision : 03.09.2024
Result : Decreed
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY
_______________________________________________________________________________
CS No. 615600/2016 Page No. 1 of 19
Springer Verlag Gmbh. vs. Suman Chaudhary
JUDGMENT
Suit in brief The present suit has been filed by plaintiff seeking recovery of Euro 63205.42 (equivalent to INR 43,94,739) along with future and pendente lite interest @ 18% per annum against the defendant. It is stated that plaintiff is a global scientific publisher and engaged in the business of publishing books and the defendant is a distributor of the books. It is further claimed that the plaintiff had supplied books to the defendant as per orders placed by the defendant from time to time on a discounted price on 'No return' basis. Initially the defendant made part payment of outstanding amount but later on it did not pay and as per the statement of account, an amount of Rs. 44,96,043 (Euro 63,205.42) is outstanding but despite repeated requests and various emails, the defendant failed to pay the said outstanding amount and only gave false assurances. A legal notice dated 02.02.2012 was also sent to the defendant demanding the said amount along with interest but it was not complied with. As such, the present suit has been filed.
Defence, Replication, issues & trial
2. The defendant contested the present case and filed written statement on 21.07.2014 by denying allegations of the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of the _______________________________________________________________________________ CS No. 615600/2016 Page No. 2 of 19 Springer Verlag Gmbh. vs. Suman Chaudhary defendant wherein the averments made in the plaint were reiterated/reaffirmed and the allegations of the defendant were controverted. Initially the suit was filed by plaintiff against Ramesh Kumar alleging him to be the proprietor of M/s. Insat Books and Periodicals. However, the plaintiff claimed that it was discovered subsequently that Smt. Suman Chaudhary is the proprietor of M/s Insat Books and Periodicals and not Ramesh Kumar. Therefore, vide order dated 25.07.2013, the plaintiff substituted Smt. Suman Chaudhary in the place of Ramesh Kumar. Thereafter, Smt. Suman Chaudhary was served with summons and she filed her written statement. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 16.04.2015:
(1) Whether the plaintiff is a company duly incorporated under the laws of Germany, as alleged in para 1 of the plaint? (OPP) (2) Whether the plaint has been signed, verified and instituted by a duly authorized and competent person? (OPP) (3) Whether the suit is barred by limitation as per the preliminary objections No. 3 & 4 taken by the defendant in the written statement? (OPD) (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.43,94,739.30 paise from the defendant, as prayed for in prayer (a)? (OPP) (5) If issue No.4 is decided in favour of the plaintiff, whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim interest from the _______________________________________________________________________________ CS No. 615600/2016 Page No. 3 of 19 Springer Verlag Gmbh. vs. Suman Chaudhary defendant on the awarded amount and if so, at what rate and for what period ? (OPP)
3. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined Sh. Kamlesh Kumar as PW-1. Defendant also led evidence and examined Sh. Ramesh Kumar, AR as DW1 and Ms. Suman Chaudhary as DW-
2. I have heard arguments from Sh. Vidur Kamra, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs and Sh. Abhishek Tyagi & Sh. Mridul Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the defendant and gone through the record.
REASONS FOR DECISION Issue No. 1: Whether the plaintiff is a company duly incorporated under the laws of Germany, as alleged in para 1 of the plaint? (OPP)
4. The Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the word 'GmbH' is an abbreviation which means 'company with limited liability' and it is a suffix used after name of a private limited company in Germany. Therefore, said name itself indicates that the plaintiff is company registered under the laws of Germany. Further, the plaintiff company has also brought on record the excerpts from the Commercial Register, showing the registration of plaintiff company in Germany which was marked as Mark A. It is also claimed that the application for credit (EX P-1) and several other communications have been sent by the defendant to the plaintiff company in the name _______________________________________________________________________________ CS No. 615600/2016 Page No. 4 of 19 Springer Verlag Gmbh. vs. Suman Chaudhary of plaintiff's company only. Even the plaintiff's witness also deposed that the plaintiff is a company registered in Germany. In view of documentary evidence produced on record which specifically find mentioned the name of the plaintiff's company, this court holds that the plaintiff is a company and competent to file the present suit as a legal entity. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue No. 2: Whether the plaint has been signed, verified and instituted by a duly authorized and competent person? (OPP)
5. The Ld. Counsel for the defendant argued that a company needs to act through its minutes of meeting and authorization from a company must come in the form of a board resolution being passed in a meeting of the Board of Directors. But the plaintiff did not place on record any such resolution and minutes of meeting to establish the authority to institute the present suit and also to depose on behalf of the company. In this regard, he relied on the case of Escorts Ltd. v. Sai Autos, (1990) 42 DLT 446 wherein it was held that a company acts through the decisions made by its Board of Directors and the only way to prove that the decision was taken by the Board of Directors is by presenting the minutes of meetings. It was further held in that case that the only way to prove that a particular resolution was passed at a meeting of the Board of Directors of a company is that the minutes _______________________________________________________________________________ CS No. 615600/2016 Page No. 5 of 19 Springer Verlag Gmbh. vs. Suman Chaudhary book in which the said resolution was recorded should be produced in court.
6. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff argued that Mr. Gregor Karolus and Mr. Thomas Gei Belhart were authorized to jointly represent the plaintiff company, as has been duly verified by the Notary after inspecting Commercial Register for the plaintiff company. It is claimed that Mr. Gregor Karolus and Mr. Thomas GeiBelhart had issued a power of attorney dated 05.04.2012 in favor of Ms. Poonam Sharma and other people. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff also relied on the famous judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in "United Bank of India vs Naresh Kumar and ors. (1996) 6 SCC 660" on the said point.
"It cannot be disputed that a company like the appellant can sue and be sued in its own name. Under Order 6 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure a pleading is required to be signed by the party and its pleader, if any. As a company is a juristic entity it is obvious that some person has to sign the pleadings on behalf of the company. Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, therefore, provides that in a suit by against a corporation the Secretary or any Director or other Principal officer of the corporation who is able to depose to the facts of the case might sign and verify on behalf of the company. Reading Order 6 Rule 14 together with Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure it would appear that even in the absence of any formal letter of authority or power of attorney having been executed a person referred to in Rule 1 of Order 29 can, by virtue of the office which he holds, sign and verify the pleadings on behalf of the corporation. In addition thereto and de hors Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as a company is a juristic entity, it can _______________________________________________________________________________ CS No. 615600/2016 Page No. 6 of 19 Springer Verlag Gmbh. vs. Suman Chaudhary duly authorise any person to sign the plaint or the written statement on its behalf and this would be regarded as sufficient compliance with the provisions of Order 6 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A person may be expressly authorised to sign the pleadings on behalf of the company, for example by the Board of Directors passing a resolution to that effect or by a power of attorney being executed in favour of any individual. In absence thereof and in cases where pleadings have been signed by one of it's officers a Corporation can ratify the said action of it's officer in signing the pleadings. Such ratification can be express or implied. The Court can, on the basis of the evidence on record, and after taking all the circumstances of the case, specially with regard to the conduct of the trial, come to the conclusion that the corporation had ratified the act of signing of the pleading by it's officer."
7. From the aforesaid illustrious position of law as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, this court is of the considered opinion that the judgment relied by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant is distinguishable in law and cannot be applied. When proper authorization on behalf of its officers has been duly proved on record by the plaintiff, there is no need to have any resolution or minute of meeting of the Board of Directors. As such the aforesaid argument is rejected and it is held that the present was duly instituted on behalf of plaintiff company and the officers also had authority to file the present suit and to depose as witnesses. This issue is thus decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue No. 3: Whether the suit is barred by limitation as per the preliminary objections No. 3 & 4 taken by the defendant in the written statement? (OPD) _______________________________________________________________________________ CS No. 615600/2016 Page No. 7 of 19 Springer Verlag Gmbh. vs. Suman Chaudhary
8. The Ld. Counsel for the defendant submitted that the present defendant was substituted in the place of the original defendant in terms of order dated 14.02.2014 and as per Order 1 Rule 10 (4) CPC, the plaint is required to be amended where defendant is added and thereafter the plaint is required to be served through summons. As per Rule 10(5) "The proceeding as against any person added as defendant shall be deemed to have begun only from the date of service of summons." He further pointed out that Section 21 (1) of the Limitation Acct says that "where after the institution of the suit, a new plaintiff or defendant is substituted or added, the suit shall as regard him, be deemed to have instituted when he was so made party."
9. It is also contended that plaintiff was aware of the present defendant being the proprietor of the firm and the document Ex. P-1 filed by the plaintiff on the record specifically mentions that Mrs. Suman Chaudhary is the proprietor of the firm. Therefore, the stand of the plaintiff that on the date of filing of the suit it was not aware of the proprietor of the firm has no force and is utterly false.
10. The counsel for the defendant also argued that the present defendant was served with summons only on 25.02.2014 and counting from the said date, the suit is beyond the period of 3 years. It is further stated that the present suit is barred by limitation even on the date of _______________________________________________________________________________ CS No. 615600/2016 Page No. 8 of 19 Springer Verlag Gmbh. vs. Suman Chaudhary its original filing i.e. 11.05.2012 which was beyond the period of 3 years from the date of last delivery of books.
11. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff argued that the defendant has not led any evidence to prove the said issue. He further argued that the defendant on several occasions admitted the outstanding dues and assured plaintiff that it will repay the said amount. In this regard, Ld. Counsel relied on the document Ex.P/4 and Ex.PW-1/13. He also pointed out that as per statement of account (Ex.PW1/12), the last payment was made by the Defendant on 22.06.2009 and the suit has been filed by the plaintiff on 14.05.2012, therefore, same is within the limitation period. This court is of the considered opinion that in view of said last payment made by the defendant and several admissions as made in the communication by the defendant, the suit is within the period of limitation.
12. As regards the counting of period of limitation against the substituted present defendant, it is seen that the suit has not alone been filed against an individual but it has been filed against a proprietorship concern also i.e. "INSAT Books & Periodicals'. From the several communication and documents placed on record, it is crystal clear that the transactions took place between the parties in the name of proprietorship concern and majorly by Ramesh Kumar who never disclosed that he was not the proprietor or principal officer of the _______________________________________________________________________________ CS No. 615600/2016 Page No. 9 of 19 Springer Verlag Gmbh. vs. Suman Chaudhary defendant concern and rather he himself replied all communications in his name. Therefore, this court holds that it was the genuine belief of the plaintiff that Shri Ramesh Kumar was the wholesome person who was the proprietor of the defendant firm. The period of limitation starts with regard to substituted defendant from the date of acquiring knowledge by the plaintiff and not prior to the date of filing of the present suit. If a proprietorship concern changes or replaces its proprietor then it is an internal affair and it cannot be known to public at large because proprietorship concern is not a company who is required to file returns to the public agency i.e. Registrar of Companies about changes/retirement of its Director etc.
13. Moreover, the Ld. Counsel for the defendant did not quote the entire Section 21(1) of the Limitation Act and only referred to its first part. The second part of the said Section is its proviso which reads as under:
"Provided that where the court is satisfied that the omission to include a new plaintiff or defendant was due to a mistake made in good faith it may direct that the suit as regards such plaintiff or defendant shall be deemed to have been instituted on any earlier date."
14. In view of aforesaid observations and the aforesaid statutory provision, this court holds that the omission to include the present defendant in the original suit was due to a mistake made in good faith and that the present suit is treated to have been instituted _______________________________________________________________________________ CS No. 615600/2016 Page No. 10 of 19 Springer Verlag Gmbh. vs. Suman Chaudhary against the present defendant from the date of filing of the present suit only. Thus the present suit is within the period of limitation against the present defendant also. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the defendant and in favour of plaintiff.
Issue No. 4: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.43,94,739.30 paise from the defendant, as prayed for in prayer (a)? (OPP)
15. It is the admitted case of both sides and even evidence came on record which establish that books were supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant concern from time to time and that plaintiff used to maintain a ledger account indicating the outstanding amount and the amount paid by the defendant. As per the statement of account (Ex PW-1/13), a balance outstanding of 63,205.42 Euro was shown due to the defendant. As per the exchange rate prevalent at the date of filing of the present suit, the said amount stands as Rs.43,94,739.30. [Conversion rate as on 14.05.2012 was 1 Euro= Rs. 69.19].
16. The dispute primarily arose between the parties as the defendant claimed that there were 236 books which were not as per the contract/practice and as such he sought credit of the amount of the said books from the plaintiff, which was initially denied but subsequently agreed in the hope of seeking payment of remaining outstanding amount. The sequence of events can very well be _______________________________________________________________________________ CS No. 615600/2016 Page No. 11 of 19 Springer Verlag Gmbh. vs. Suman Chaudhary discerned from the following communications between the parties:
""Legal notice dated 21.02.2012 sent by plaintiff However as you are willing to settle the matter amicably and pay all the outstanding dues of my clients, but for the 236 books with which you feel aggrieved and are unable to sell, without going into any further contentions, we suggest the following:
- Return the 236 books that you are unable to sell to my clients and the cost price amount of the same would be set off from the total outstanding due of Euro 63,205/-. Kindly note that we are assuming that the books are in the same condition as have been provided to you.
- The above will be subject to payment of total outstanding amount i.e. Total outstanding due of Euro 63,205 - cost price of 236 titles along with 18% interest.
Kindly note that the above is a goodwill gesture from my client and is a one-time offer of settlement of all dues and would be valid if you pay the entire outstanding due with interest within 21 days of receipt of this letter.
E-mail dated 25.02.2012 (page 70) sent by plaintiff Dear Mr. Kumar I am sorry to hear about the loss of your mother-in-law. In the given circumstances, kindly note that my client is willing to extend the period till 12 th March to provide details of the 236 books, as specified in our letter dated 21 st February and 25th March to clear all outstanding dues, as also specified in the aforesaid letter. Kindly however note that no further extensions would be possible from our end. Kindly also note that while you are welcome to visit my client's stall as well, there is nothing else really to discuss in the matter and hence we would appreciate a _______________________________________________________________________________ CS No. 615600/2016 Page No. 12 of 19 Springer Verlag Gmbh. vs. Suman Chaudhary formal reply. We hope that you can appreciate the fact that my client has been more than reasonable in proposing the terms for an amicable settlement and we sincerely hope that the same are accepted and honoured from your end as well.
E-mail dated 15.03.2012(page 72) sent by Defendant As we had already written you, 31st March being close of financial year for book purchases by institutes in India, we are very very busy in this part of year as all your book supplies and related matters which include last time rushing out of Delhi for institutional in house exhibitions have to be complied well before that like one call we have from Jhalander PTU (Punjab Tech. Uni) on March 20-21 and this makes it extremely difficult for us to concentrate on others activities. Therefore, I don't think we can really do anything comfortably in this regard until early April.
For the stocks that we intend to return and the credit notes we have been seeking, I would again ask your principals M/s. Springer to facilitate the matter by checking related invoices nos at their own end as I hope they shall be better equipped. Otherwise also they will cross check the particulars that we will provide them. The problem on our part is that because of some earlier breakdown of our software, now we shall have to physically check each and every book with respective invoice and you can well understand how much time it will consume.
"E-mail dated 17.04.2012(page 75) sent by plaintiff Dear Mr. Kumar, I write further to your email below. Kindly note that more than Euro 63,000 is due for payment and we have given you ample opportunities time and over again in the last 2 years to make good this payment. However, you have failed to make this payment and instead have been raising a dispute with respect to some 236 books.
As an added gesture, by letter dated 21.02.2012 my client _______________________________________________________________________________ CS No. 615600/2016 Page No. 13 of 19 Springer Verlag Gmbh. vs. Suman Chaudhary agreed to even set off the amount with respect to the 236 books and gave you a last and final opportunity to provide details of the invoices with respect to the 236 books and make good the payment, which also has not been complied by you. For a mere 236 books (which shall at best we worth Euro 10,000), you have withheld a payment of more than Euro 63,000.
In case you wish to settle this dispute amicably, we request you to at least deposit 50% of the amount forthwith, further to which we can look into any of your requests, else we shall be constrained to initiate legal proceedings against you."
"E-mail dated 01.05.2012(page 77) sent by defendant Recently, again springer huge stocks of prints as remainder has been supplied in the market and each title is being sold out @ Rs.500 only. It will be further negotiable at much lesser price if one is to purchase in good quantities. And the same material, which is lying unsold in our stocks, they had earlier sold to us at an average price of Rs. 3000/ 4000 each unit. Tell us how we can now sell their books to our customers at regular price until and unless we should too have to sell @ Rs.500/- or at less. We therefore left no any alternative or any other option except to return their stocks to Springer which is also occupying our office space unnecessarily.
We have clearly mentioned in my last mail that your client has an easy approach to find out the all the respective invoices of the 236 books. In fact their invoices are in a very peculiar style and it is very difficult for us to find out the title name in the invoice. However, if you insist then we will try but it will take more time to us. But again we will say better if your client do this job at their end and the work will be very easy and fast. Yet, as intimated you earlier also, we have already deputed our 2 persons for this job only for preparing the list of books with their proper invoices numbers and etc. Any further legal action will be at Springer cost and consequences and as we have already written, we wish to settle the matter amicably. And if your client desire so, then they are welcome and may discuss and settle this. We are silent and _______________________________________________________________________________ CS No. 615600/2016 Page No. 14 of 19 Springer Verlag Gmbh. vs. Suman Chaudhary remained mum only because that we didn't want to spoil our relations with Springer at all but believe in mutual long lasting business relation only and that is why we have been knocking your client door again and again and specially went to F.Furt personally for the settlement of this matter only.
Since our men are already on job compiling all necessary information, we shall get back to you as soon as the job is over and which we hope to finish soon."
17. From the aforesaid communications between the parties, it is evident that the plaintiff was repeatedly requesting the defendant to pay the due amount along with interest but the defendant simply sought time on one ground or the other and also took a plea that the plaintiff has to credit the payment of 236 books.
18. The Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff argued that there was no contract between the parties for return of the books which have been supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant. On the contrary, Ld. Counsel for the defendant argued that no contract or proof has been filed on record by the plaintiff to show that the said contract was based on "no return basis".
19. Ld. Counsel for the defendant also argued that there is a proof of return and credit note in the past which shows that the claim of the plaintiff of having "no return" policy is false and in this regard, the email dated 22.04.2010, 17.05.2010 (Ex. P-4), 17.07.2010 are relied. He also submitted that the plaintiff agreed to issue a "credit _______________________________________________________________________________ CS No. 615600/2016 Page No. 15 of 19 Springer Verlag Gmbh. vs. Suman Chaudhary note" for 236 books (as per them 200) on account of return and the attached list of 236 books is Ex. P-6 (22 to 26). From cross- examination of the defendant Suman Chaudhary (DW-2) dated 04.07.2023, it is seen that a specific question was asked to her by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and the same is as under:
"Q. I put it to you that as per the agreement between you and the plaintiff, the books supplied by the plaintiff were on "not returned basis". What you have to say?
Ans. Yes, "not returned basis" was there but if they give books on higher rates and the books are sold at cheaper price in the market, the defendant cannot keep the books supplied by the plaintiff. "
20. From the aforesaid answer, it is clear that the contract was admitted to be of the books on 'no return basis'. Even if it is presumed that there was a contract of returning of books and credit of the said amount in the ledger account of the plaintiff, the said claim of credit will be done only when the defendant had actually returned the books to the plaintiff. The plaintiff repeatedly asked the defendant to provide the details of the said books and also to return the same to the plaintiff but the defendant only showed one or the other excuses which are reflected in the aforesaid communications. Therefore, this court holds that unless the defendant had physically/actually returned the said 236 books, which were valuable goods, the plaintiff cannot be obliged to credit their amount in the ledger account of the defendant. The defendant did not lead any evidence that any such book was ever _______________________________________________________________________________ CS No. 615600/2016 Page No. 16 of 19 Springer Verlag Gmbh. vs. Suman Chaudhary returned to the plaintiff, therefore, the said claim of the defendant for credit of amount of 236 books is found baseless and not justified and the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of said books also from the defendant, besides the other due amounts.
21. Ld. Counsel for the defendant contended that the ledger of the plaintiff does not reflect the credit of 1,310.96 euro on account of credit note due to short supply and 37,624 euro due to return of the books. It further does not reflect the payment which were made by the defendant to the plaintiff in the form of demand draft. As regards the amount of 37624 Euro, the same is not admissible as the same relates to 236 books which were not returned by the defendant to the plaintiff. The details of the other transaction have not been brought on record. Even DW1 Sh. Ramesh admitted in his cross-examination that the amount of any other credit except 236 books was never mentioned in any communications which were sent to the plaintiff. Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that the ledger account placed on record by the plaintiff is admissible and no contrary evidence has been produced on record and when there is no denial for dispute on the point of calculation of the said amount ever raised in the previous communication.
22. Ld. Counsel for the defendant further argued that the plaintiff flooded the market at New Delhi by providing the books in _______________________________________________________________________________ CS No. 615600/2016 Page No. 17 of 19 Springer Verlag Gmbh. vs. Suman Chaudhary open market at the throw away price of 10% only during the same period of 2007-08. Furthermore, those materials were also sold by the plaintiff through online process and e-books. In such circumstances the defendant claimed credit note of these books but credit note of it is also not reflecting in the ledger. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff argued that online books on Amazon was not in vogue at the relevant time and the books sold on the online platform outside India involved custom duty also, therefore their amounts were different and it has no connection with the books which sold to the defendant. From the several communications made by the defendant at the relevant time, it is seen that no such objection was ever raised. Moreover, while purchasing the books from the plaintiff, the defendant should have applied due fair and attention as the said books involved financial implication and when same were purchased/received, the defendant can raise such objection within the reasonable time only as per the Sales of Goods Act but the defendant did not raise such objection, she is bound down to make payment of such books to the plaintiff within the stipulated time period. Various questions were asked during cross-examination of DW-1 and DW-2 about the time period of raising of such objection, if any but they simply showed their ignorance. As such the said defence is found not substantiated.
_______________________________________________________________________________ CS No. 615600/2016 Page No. 18 of 19 Springer Verlag Gmbh. vs. Suman Chaudhary
23. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The plaintiff is held entitled for recovery of Euro 63205.42 (equivalent to INR 43,94,739).
Issue No.5. If issue No.4 is decided in favour of the plaintiff, whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim interest from the defendant on the awarded amount and if so, at what rate and for what period ? (OPP)
24. Keeping in mind the commercial nature of transaction, the plaintiff is awarded to a reasonable interest @12% per annum on Euro 63205.42 (equivalent to INR 43,94,739) from the date of legal notice i.e. 02.02.2012 till the realization of amount.
Relief/Conclusion
25. In the light of aforesaid findings, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for recovery of Euro 63205.42 (equivalent to INR 43,94,739) along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of legal notice i.e. 02.02.2012 till the date of realization of the amount. Cost of the suit is also awarded to the plaintiff as per rules, which will be reflected in the decree-sheet. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signedAnnounced & dictated in NARESH by NARESH
KUMAR LAKA
KUMAR Date:
the open court on 03.09.2024 LAKA 2024.09.04
15:30:32 +0530
(Naresh Kumar Laka)
District Judge-07,
Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
_______________________________________________________________________________ CS No. 615600/2016 Page No. 19 of 19 Springer Verlag Gmbh. vs. Suman Chaudhary