Delhi District Court
M/S Shree Sales Corporation vs Servotech Electricals Pvt. Ltd on 11 January, 2016
IN THE COURT OF MS.NISHA SAXENA: ADJ03
(EAST): KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
CS No.107/15
Unique ID No. 02402C0120682014
M/s Shree Sales Corporation
Having its office at 5, Basement,
9B, Nehru Complex, Main Patparganj
Road, Pandav Nagar, Delhi92.
Through its Manager and
Authorized Representative
Mr. Ram Dhan Rewar S/o Late M.R. Rewar,
R/o E138, Ist Floor, Pandav Nagar, Delhi110091.
..... Plaintiff
Versus
1. Servotech Electricals Pvt. Ltd.
Having registered office at:
Vijay Tower 252A, Shahpur Jat,
New Delhi49.
Through its Director
2. Arunava Das
Director / Authorized Signatory
Servotech Electricals Pvt. Ltd.
3. Rajita Das
Director / Authorized Signatory
PC No. 01/15 (RBT) 1/9
Servotech Electricals Pvt. Ltd.
Both R/o 56, Munirka Vihar,
New Delhi110067.
..... Defendants
Date of Institution : 24.04.2014
Date of reserving judgment : 07.01.2016
Date of pronouncement : 11.01.2016
JUDGMENT: Initially, the present suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 4,98,316/ was filed by the plaintiff against the defendants under Order 37 CPC, however, on 02.05.2014, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff gave a statement before the court that the present suit be treated as an ordinary suit for recovery. Accordingly, the present suit was treated as an ordinary civil suit.
PLAINTIFF'S CASE: The case of the plaintiff is that the defendants were having business relations with the plaintiff firm since June 2012. The plaintiff had been regularly supplying the cables as per their satisfaction since 08.06.2012 till October 2013. It is further averred that the plaintiff firm supplied the cable to the defendants firm from 08.06.2012 to 30.05.2013, for a total sum of Rs.82,72,346/ and it was agreed between the parties that an interest @ 18% p.a. will be PC No. 01/15 (RBT) 2/9 charged after due date of payment i.e. 45 days after the date of supply. It is further averred that as per the statement of account of the plaintiff, the total principal amount of Rs.3,48,147/ + interest i.e. Rs.1,49,494/ and Rs.674/ as cheque bouncing charges (the total of which comes to Rs.4,98,316/) is due against the defendants. It is further averred that to discharge their liability, the defendants issued a cheque No.008326 dated 07.12.2013 for Rs.3,48,147/ drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, Shopping Center, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi17 and handed over the same to the plaintiff at his office with the assurance that the cheque will be encashed at the time of presentation and also requested to deposit the same after two weeks. It is further averred that as per the assurance, the plaintiff deposited the aforesaid cheque for clearance with their banker i.e. ICICI Bank Ltd., Preet Vihar, Delhi, but the same was dishonoured with the remarks "Funds Insufficient" vide returning memo dated 06.01.2014. Thereafter, the plaintiff tried to contact the defendants, but they started avoiding him by not picking his phone. It is further averred that defendants are quite irregular in making the payment to the plaintiff as per terms and conditions agreed between the parties and unnecessary holding the money and delaying the payments due to PC No. 01/15 (RBT) 3/9 which plaintiff suffered financial loss and unnecessary harassment. When the defendants failed to make the payment, the plaintiff sent a legal notice of demand dated 16.01.2014 on 17.01.2014 to the defendants through registered A/D and demanded the payment of the dishonoured cheque besides entire outstanding payment due, which was duly received by the defendants. Despite receipt of legal notice, the defendant did not pay the cheque amount nor replied to the legal notice. It is further averred that when the defendants failed to make the payment of the dishonoured cheque till the expiry of statutory period, a criminal case u/s 138 of N.I. Act was filed by the plaintiff in the court of Shri S.P.S. Laler, M.M., KKD Courts, Delhi. Thus, the plaintiff has claimed recovery of Rs. 4,98,316/ with interest @ 18% per annum.
DEFENDANTS CASE: The defendants in their written statement have denied all the averments made by the plaintiff in his plaint and have averred that the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and suppressed the vital material facts from the court. It is denied that an amount of Rs.3,48,147/ is pending as principal amount against the defendant. However, it is submitted by the defendants in their PC No. 01/15 (RBT) 4/9 written statement that on the first date of hearing before the Court of Sh.S.P.S. Laler, Ld. Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, East, KKD Courts, Delhi, they have deposited the amount of dishonoured cheque i.e. Rs.3,48,147/, regarding which the present petition has been filed by the plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief as prayed for in his petition as the same is based on false, frivolous, baseless and concocted story. It is further submitted that the plaintiff herein did not accept the said payment which is still lying deposited before the said court. It is, therefore, prayed that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief claimed.
During the course of trial, Shri Arunava Das, Director of defendants firm i.e. M/s Servotech Electicals Pvt. Ltd. gave a statement before the court on 07.01.2016, that he has no objection if the present suit filed by the plaintiff may be decreed in accordance with provisions of law. It is also stated by him in his statement that on 14.03.2014, the principal amount to the tune of Rs.3,48,147/ was already deposited in the court of Sh. S.P.S. Laler, Ld. ACMM, KKD Courts, Delhi and the suit may be decreed on the principal amount while interest part may be decided by the Court.
On the basis of statement made by Shri Arunava Das, the PC No. 01/15 (RBT) 5/9 following issue regarding the interest was framed: "What is the rate of interest payable on the principal amount by the defendant to the plaintiff till the realization of the amount?"
Ld. Counsel for both the parties submitted that they did not wish to lead any evidence. Their statements to this effect have been recorded separately.
I have heard Ld. Counsel Mr. V.N. Chaturvedi for the plaintiff and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Ld. Counsel for the defendant and gone through the record.
It has been contended by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that it was agreed between the parties that interest rate of 18% p.a. will be charged after due date of payment i.e. 45 days after date of supply. It is stated that cause of action arose when cheque of Rs. 3,48,147/ issued by the defendant was dishonored on 06012014. The plaintiff has claimed a decree for an amount of Rs 4,98,316/ alongwith pendentelite and future interest @ 18% p.a. The plaintiff has also filed a case U/s 138 NI Act which is pending in the court of Sh. Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler, Ld. ACMM, East District, KKD Courts, wherein the defendant PC No. 01/15 (RBT) 6/9 deposited the dishonored cheque amount of Rs. 3,48,147/ but the plaintiff did not accept the said payment which is still lying deposited before the court. It is stated by the defendant that the payment was made only with a view to avoid the prolonged trial as well as to maintain commercial relations with the plaintiff.
The grant of interest is a discretionary relief which must be exercised in accordance with law and judiciously. The discretion must be exercised fairly as the discretion excercised must answer the test of reasonableness.
In Kruger Vs. Commonwealth of Australia (1997)146 Aus, LR 126 it is stated: "Moreover, when a discretionary power is statutorily conferred on a repository, the power must be exercised reasonably, for the legislature is taken to intend that the discretion be so exercised. Reasonableness can be determined only by reference to the community standards at the time of the exercise of the discretion and that must be taken to be the legislative intention..."
The discretionary jurisdiction has to be exercised keeping in view the purpose for which it is conferred, the object sought PC No. 01/15 (RBT) 7/9 to be achieved and the reasons for granting such wide discretion.
Interest can be awarded in terms of an agreement or statutory provisions. It can also be awarded by reason of usage or trade having the force of law or on equitable considerations. Interest cannot be awarded by way of damages except in cases where money due is wrongfully withheld and there are equitable grounds therefor, for which a written demand is mandatory.
In absence of any agreement or statutory provision or a mercantile usage, interest payable can be only at the market rate. Such interest is payable upon establishment of totality of circumstances justifying exercise of such equitable jurisdiction.
Rate of interest should be a reasonable one as the same became payable for the default and delay in making the payment, subject of course to the statutory provision.
Considering the fact and circumstances, inasmuch as the defendant deposited the principal amount in the case U/s 138 N.I.Act, I am of the opinion that the interest of justice would be sub served if the rate of interest is directed to be paid @ 10% p.a. from the date on which the amount fell due up to its realization. PC No. 01/15 (RBT) 8/9 Issue framed is accordingly disposed of.
Decree sheet be drawn accordingly leaving the parties to bear their own cost. File be cosigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Nisha Saxena) Dated: 11th January, 2016. Additional District Judge(03) East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
PC No. 01/15 (RBT) 9/9