Delhi District Court
H I Dairy & Agro Products Limited vs Epic Food Products Pvt. Ltd on 29 May, 2014
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE 16
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS No. 393/14/07
I.D.No. 02401C1252342007
H I Dairy & Agro Products Limited
Through its Director Sh. Rajesh Maskara
Having its Registered Office at
B1316, Harjipur Industrial Area,
Hajipur, Bihar844101. .....Plaintiff
Versus
Epic Food Products Pvt. Ltd.,
having its Registered Office at
G40, Ashok Vihar, Delhi110052. .....Defendants
Date of institution of case : 10.12.2007
Date of judgment reserved : 09.05.2014
Date of judgment pronounced : 29.05.2014
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 3,29,187/
(RUPEES THREE
LACS TWENTY NINE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY
SEVEN ONLY)
J U D G E M E N T
1) The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs 3,29,187/ alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of CS No.393/14/07 H I Dairy& Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Epic Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Page No.1 of 9 filing of the suit till its realization alongwith cost of the suit against the defendant M/s Epic Food Products Private Limited through its Director Sh. Rajesh Maskara. It is claimed in the plaint that plaintiff is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of processed food and supplying ingredients to industries engaged in the business of processing food. It is submitted that the defendant which is a company engaged in manufacturing food products and is registered under the Companies Act having its registered office at Delhi requested for quotations for supply of goods from the plaintiff company and on the basis of quotations provided by the plaintiff it issued purchase order bearing No. 56 for goods valued at Rs.15,52,200/ dated 17.05.2006 and purchase order no. 66 for goods valued at Rs.22,76,560/ dated 25.05.2006. It is submitted that the plaintiff company based on the purchase orders supplied goods to the defendant and raised invoice dated 20.05.2006 bearing no. DOM008 for the amount of Rs. 15,32,021.40P and invoice dated 30.05.2006 bearing no. DOM 009 for an amount of Rs. 23,58,971.80P. It is submitted that the payments against the invoices raised were to be made by the defendant company immediately on delivery of goods supplied by the plaintiff but the defendant failed to pay the amount without any reason and that CS No.393/14/07 H I Dairy& Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Epic Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Page No.2 of 9 subsequently after lot of persuasion and visits by the officials of the plaintiff company the defendant instead of making complete payment and with a motive of harass the plaintiff and to unduly enrich itself started making part payment of the amount due to the plaintiff for a total amount of Rs. 36,80,683/. It is submitted that the plaintiff company vide letter dated 31.08.2006 and 04.10.2006 requested the defendant to clear its legal dues payable to the plaintiff which were duly served but defendant failed to clear its legal dues, thus the plaintiff was constrained to issue a legal notice to the defendant dated 18.11.2006 calling upon to pay Rs. 2,10,310.20P along with interest @ 18% towards its legal dues which was duly served on the defendant company which was neither replied nor complied. It is submitted that the plaintiff company once again sent a reminder dated 04.01.2007 calling upon the defendant company to clear its dues which also prove to be an exercise in futility. It is claimed that the plaintiff is thus entitled to recover from the defendant company the principle amount of Rs. 2,10,310.20P together with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of raising of the invoice till 31.10.2007 amounting to Rs. 1,18,876.80P. It is submitted that as the registered office of the defendant company is situated in Delhi and the purchase order for the goods supplied were issued by the defendant company at Delhi and CS No.393/14/07 H I Dairy& Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Epic Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Page No.3 of 9 part payment by the defendant were issued from Delhi, hence this Court has jurisdiction to try and decide the suit which has been properly valued and proper court fees has been paid.
2) The defendant filed a written statement contesting the suit submitting therein that the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and suppressed material facts. It is submitted that the plaintiff has concealed that it had supplied to the defendant defective products for which two debit notes i.e. AMB/EF/60/20062007 dated 03.07.2006 for amount of Rs. 1,59,355/ and no.
AMB/EF/61/20062007 dated 03.07.2006 for amount of Rs. 76,710/ had been debited to the account of the plaintiff on account of Mango Pulp rejected due to puff. It is submitted that the plaintiff has been sent the debit notes and duly informed about debiting the said amounts of rejected products to its account, therefore the question of making any payment to the plaintiff does not arise. It is further submitted that the required material of purchase order was not delivered in time as per requirement but was delivered late on different dates and that the suit has not been filed by duly authorized and competent person. The defendant admitted the placing of the purchase orders but denied that the goods were supplied by the plaintiff as per purchase orders and that the same were supplied with CS No.393/14/07 H I Dairy& Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Epic Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Page No.4 of 9 considerable delays and with defective goods. It is claimed that the defendant company was not obliged to make payments for defective goods. It is submitted that in response to letter dated 31.08.2006 and 04.10.2006, the defendant had duly informed the plaintiff vide its reply dated 11.09.2006 and 12.10.2006 that an amount of Rs. 2,36,065/ had been debited to the account of the plaintiff company by the defendant on account of defective goods and that the plaintiff company was also informed that no amount was due from defendant company to plaintiff company. It is submitted that the legal notice dated 18.11.2006 and 04.01.2007 were duly replied by the learned counsel for the defendant company vide replies dated 28.11.2006 and 16.01.2007. It is submitted that as no amount was due the plaintiff is entitled for any interest and the suit is liable to be dismissed.
3) After completion of the pleadings following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 24.03.2008: 1 Whether the debit note as alleged in the written statement raised against the plaintiff as claimed by the defendant? (OPD) 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover any amount from the defendant? (OPP)
4) The plaintiff examined its Director Sh. Rajesh Maskara in support of its case whereas Sh. Prem Shankar Singh and Sh. Prabha CS No.393/14/07 H I Dairy& Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Epic Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Page No.5 of 9 Karan Pillai, employees of the defendant appeared as a witness to defend the suit on behalf of defendant.
5) I have heard the submissions of the Ld. counsels appearing for both the parties and have perused the case file with their assistance.
My issue wise findings are as under :
6) Issue no. 1:
The burden to prove the issue was laid upon the defendant. It is the case of the defendant that two debit notes for the amount of Rs. 1,59,355/ and Rs. 76,710/ had been debited to the account of the plaintiff on account of Mango Pulp rejected due to puff and the plaintiff is not having any claim after debiting the said notes and payment of balance amount. DW2 Sh. Prabha Karan Pillai during his evidence placed on file copy of said debit notes. Although it is the claim of the defendant company that the debit notes were sent to the plaintiff and the plaintiff company was duly informed about the notes but no documentary evidence in regard to such communication has been brought on file by the defendant company. The plaintiff have denied the receiving of any such note. No witness who have prepared the debit notes and communicated about the same to the plaintiff has not been produced by the defendant in the Court, thus by adducing evidence the defendant is not able to discharge its onus to prove the CS No.393/14/07 H I Dairy& Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Epic Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Page No.6 of 9 issue. So the issue decided accordingly against the defendant.
7) Issue no. 2:
It is the case of the defendant that the material was not delivered as per purchase orders and was supplied with considerable delays and with defective goods. The plaintiff has claimed that the products were supplied and after its receipt invoices were raised. The defendant has tried to raise a plea that the purchase order was time bound and the supplies were not made in accordance with the terms of the order, but the defendant is not having any answer to the query that if the supplies were to be made time bound then as to why late supplies were received by the defendant. Moreover the defendant has not returned the rejected supplies to the plaintiff nor communicated the plaintiff about the rejection. The defendant tried to place reliance upon supply memos copies of which are placed on file during the evidence of defendant. DW1 Sh. Prem Shankar who has claimed that he had checked the material in suit dispatched by the plaintiff to the defendant company and had found that 2258 canes Mango Pulp were spoiled by puff and the same were rejected. The witness during his crossexamination deposed that he have not checked the product of HiDairy and Agro Products Limited and further deposed that the CS No.393/14/07 H I Dairy& Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Epic Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Page No.7 of 9 product as mentioned in his reports Ex.DW1/1 and Ex.DW1/2 belonged to one Devraj Food Products Private Limited, thus the defendant is not able to establish its defence that the articles supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant were defective. The defendant has admitted the receiving of the letters and the legal notice issued by the plaintiff and has claimed that the same were duly replied. The defendant has not placed on file any document to show that the replies were duly served upon the plaintiff. In these circumstances where the receiving of the articles has been admitted by the defendant and the defendant is not able to establish that it has paid the complete dues against the articles received the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of the balance due as Rs. 2,10,310.20P. The defendant has retained the due amount without any justification as such it is also liable to pay interest on the retained amount. The plaintiff has claimed the interest @ 18% per annum but is not able to establish that it was the agreed rate of rent between the parties. Thus in the absence of any evidence of agreement at the rate of interest, the plaintiff is entitled to the interest @ 9% per annum as the nature of the transaction between the parties are commercial, as per law.
8) Relief
In view of the above findings, the suit is decreed in
CS No.393/14/07 H I Dairy& Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Epic Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Page No.8 of 9
favour of plaintiff for the sum of Rs 2,10,310.20P with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of invoices i.e. 30.05.2006 till its realization against the defendant alongwith cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Announced in Open Court (Sunil Chaudhary)
th
On 29 of May, 2014 ADJ16 (Central) THC
Delhi.
CS No.393/14/07 H I Dairy& Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Epic Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Page No.9 of 9