Delhi District Court
M/S Silverline Graphics Pvt Ltd vs M/S K. B. Offset on 11 November, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH. ARVIND BANSAL, ACJCUMCCJCUMARC
DISTRICT: SOUTHEAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS SCJ 1833/16
M/s Silverline Graphics Pvt Ltd
A140, DDA Sheds
Okhla Industrial Area
Phase2, New Delhi - 110020.
through SPA holder Sh. Farhat Mansoor
....PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1.M/s K. B. Offset
2. Shri Mani Krishnan Proprietor of K. B. Offset Both at:
B85, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase1, New Delhi 110020 ....DEFENDANT SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF A SUM OF Rs. 2,90,489/ ALONGWITH PENDENTELITE AND FUTURE INTEREST.
Date of Institution : 19.11.2019
Date of Decision : 11.11.2020
EXPARTE JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit filed by plaintiff against defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,90,489/ along with pendentelite and future interest @ 24 % per annum till realization with cost.
____________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ 1835 M/s Silverline Graphics Pvt Ltd. vs. M/s K. B. Offset & Anr.
Page No. 1 of 42. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff is engaged in business of printing works and printing material supplies. Defendant no. 1 is a proprietorship firm and defendant no. 2 is the proprietor of firm. Defendant no. 2, on behalf of defendant no. 1, placed orders to printing works/material supply and plaintiff supplied the same. Plaintiff raised a total bill in the name of defendant no. 1 for a sum of Rs. 3,46,589/ which was duly acknowledged by defendants and agreed to make the said payment. Defendants made part payment of Rs. 56,100/ by cheque / epayment which was duly encashed by plaintiff. Plaintiff maintained an account in the name of defendants in the regular and ordinary course of business and as per statement of account/ledger a sum of Rs. 2,90,489/ is outstanding upon the defendants.
Several requests/reminders were made to defendants to make the payment but defendant did not pay any heed. Upon this, plaintiff got served a legal demand notice dated 16.08.2019 upon the defendants which was refused by the defendants. Thus, defendants are liable to pay a sum of Rs. 2,90,489/ alongwith pendentelite and future interest @ 24% per annum from date of filing of suit till realization.
3. Vide order dated 19.11.2019, summons of the suit were directed to be issued to defendants which were received back with remarks 'refused'. Summons were also served upon defendant in terms of orders of the Court through affixation on the given address. Due to absence of the defendants, they were proceeded exparte vide order dated 07.03.2020.
4. Exparte Evidence In support of its case, Mohd. Farhat Mansoor, AR/SPA of plaintiff ____________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ 1835 M/s Silverline Graphics Pvt Ltd. vs. M/s K. B. Offset & Anr.
Page No. 2 of 4company examined himself as PW1. He tendered his affidavit as Ex.PW1/1 and relied upon the following documents:
1. Copy of Article of Memorandum as Ex. PW1/A;
2. Copy of Bills as Ex.PW1/B (colly) running into 40 pages;
3. Copy of Ledger of Accounts maintained by plaintiff as Ex.
PW1/C running into 3 pages;
4. Legal demand notice dated 16.08.2019 as Ex. PW1/D;
5. Postal Receipt dated 16.08.2019 as Ex PW1/E;
6. Copy of acknowledgment of postal receipt dated 20.08.2019 and 22.08.2019 as Ex. PW1/F (colly).
Discussion:
5. This Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present suit as the plaintiff and defendants have their office and work for gain within the jurisdiction of this Court. As per record, the orders were received by plaintiff at its office and invoices were also raised from the same address. The suit is within period of limitation.
The case of plaintiff against the defendants is for supply of printing works material for which bills/invoices Ex. PW1/B (colly) were raised. Plaintiff has also filed the ledger account details of the sales made to the defendants over a period of time reflecting the outstanding amount. The said ledger account is Ex. PW1/C. In fact, the legal notice Ex. PW1/D dated 16.08.2019 sent to the defendants also refers to the same amount as reflecting in ledger account Ex. PW1/C. As per record, no reply of defendants to the legal notice of plaintiff is available.
Defendants failed to appear despite due service of the summons served through ordinary process / post and affixation. The evidence adduced ____________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ 1835 M/s Silverline Graphics Pvt Ltd. vs. M/s K. B. Offset & Anr.
Page No. 3 of 4by plaintiff through its AR/SPA has remained unchallenged as defendant did not appear to rebut any of the claim of the plaintiff. Further, there does not appear to be any apparent contradiction in the amount reflecting in the bills/invoices and ledger account and the one claimed through the present suit.
In view thereof, plaintiff is entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs. 2,90,489/ against the defendants for outstanding amount. Plaintiff has also claimed pendentlite and future interest @ 24% per annum. In the opinion of the Court, pendentlite and future interest @ 8% per annum would be reasonable and justified and as such, plaintiff is entitled to the same on the decreed amount till actual realization. Cost of suit is also awarded to plaintiff.
Relief
6. In view of the aforesaid findings, a decree for sum of Rs. 2,90,489/ is passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 8% per annum till realization, and cost of the suit. After payment of deficient court fees, if any, decreesheet be prepared by the Reader.
File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance as per law. ARVIND Digitally signed by ARVIND BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2020.11.11 16:03:55 +0530 (ARVIND BANSAL) ACJcumCCJcumARC (SouthEast) Saket Courts, New Delhi Announced in the open Court through CISCO WEBEX on 11.11.2020 ____________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ 1835 M/s Silverline Graphics Pvt Ltd. vs. M/s K. B. Offset & Anr.
Page No. 4 of 4