Delhi District Court
M/S Ish Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd vs M/S J.M. & Company on 15 March, 2013
In the Court of Ms. Ina Malhotra, Additional District JudgeI,
New Delhi District: Patiala House Courts: New Delhi
Suit No. 231/11
(ID No. 02403C0088562011)
M/s Ish Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Authorised
Representative Mr. Anil Kr. Gupta
Office at : 57 (S.F.) Regal Building
Connaught Place, N. Delhi .......Plaintiff
V E R S U S
M/s J.M. & Company
Through its Proprietor/Partner
Office at:P1601, Sector 23
Near Devi Lal Park
Gurgaon, Haryana.
Mr. Navneet, Proprietor/Partner
M/s J.M. & Company
Through its Proprietor/Partner
Office at:P1601, Sector 23
Near Devi Lal Park
Gurgaon, Haryana. .......Defendants
PLAINT PRESENTED ON: 08.12.2011
ARGUMENT CONCLUDED ON: 28.02.2013
JUDGEMENT ON: 15.03.2013
J U D G M E N T
The plaintiff's suit is for recovery of Rs. 9,76,657/.
Suit No. 231/11 Page 1 of 8...
2. As per the averments, the plaintiff is an IATA approved Travel Agent engaged in the business of selling tickets of various airlines including through travel agents/subagents. Defendant no. 2, as proprietor of defendant no. 1, also had business dealings for which the plaintiff maintained a running account. It is stated that till 16.11.2006 all dues had been cleared. It was only thereafter that the defendant started defaulting in making payments. The plaintiff has relied upon the statement of account stating that the defendant last made part payment of Rs. 10,000/ on 16.05.2009 in cash. As per the said statement, a sum of Rs. 8,72,015/ was due and payable as on 17.03.2010. Thereafter on account of interest liability, the outstanding amount has increased to Rs. 9,76,657/. Inspite of several reminders and issuance of legal notice, the defendant has failed to take any steps to pay the dues.
3. In the Written Statement, the defendant repudiated the liability and has stated that a full settlement had been arrived at between the parties in the year 2008 for a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs, of which Rs. 4,14,000/ had been paid vide cheque and cash. The remaining amount of Rs. 86,000/ was not paid and the same Suit No. 231/11 Page 2 of 8...
was now barred by limitation. The defendant has stated that the entire claim of the plaintiff was time barred.
4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues have been framed : i. Whether the claim of the plaintiff had been settled in full by the defendants?
ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the outstanding amount? If so, how much?
iii. Whether the claim of the plaintiff is within limitation? iv. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest? If so, at what rate and from when?
v. Relief.
5. The plaintiff led their evidence by examining their Sr. Manager Accounts, Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta as PW1. The testimony of this witness is a reiteration of the averments made in the plaint. He has deposed that the plaintiff, an IATA approved Travel Agent, was engaged in ticketing of various airlines. Tickets are sold to passengers or to travel agents/subagents. Defendant no. 2 as proprietor of defendant no. 1 had approached the plaintiff for carrying out business with them. PW1 has stated that defendant had cleared all the accounts till 16.11.2006 but thereafter has only made part remittances. The last payment was Suit No. 231/11 Page 3 of 8...
made vide deposit of Rs. 10,000/ on 16.05.2009. Two other cheques being cheque nos. 847751 and 847763 for Rs. 50,000/ and Rs. 5,000/ were presented and dishonoured on 03.07.2009 and 17.03.2010 respectively. As on 17.03.2010, the defendant's outstanding liability was Rs. 8,72,015/. On the aforesaid amount, interest at 12% has accrued and the present liability is Rs. 9,76,657/. Legal notice issued to the defendant along with its postal record is Ex. P2 (Colly) to P3 (Colly). The certificate of incorporation of the plaintiff company was Ex. P1 and the Resolution in favour of the deponent was Ex. PW1/1.
6. The defendant neither crossexamined the plaintiff's witness nor adduced any evidence. Though the plaintiff's evidence remained unrebutted, since certain legal issues had also been framed, my findings are as under:
ISSUE No.3.
Whether the claim of the plaintiff is within limitation?
7. The defendant's case was that a full and final settlement had been made in the year 2008 for a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs of which Rs.4.14 Lakhs had been paid in cheque and cash.
Suit No. 231/11 Page 4 of 8...
The remaining amount of Rs.86,000/ was admittedly not paid but the same has become time barred. Needless to say the previous claim was also time barred according to the defendant. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff on the other hand rebutted the said contention by stating that the last payment was made by the defendant on 16.05.2009 in acknowledgment of their outstanding liability and with a view to reduce the same by depositing Rs.10,000/ in cash. The plaintiff has produced the ledger account maintained in respect of the transactions with the defendant as Ex.P3 ( colly). The said statement of account reflects that two cheque being No.847751 for Rs.50,000/ and No.847763 for Rs.5000/ were deposited in the plaintiff's account but returned dishonoured on 03.07.2009 and 17.03.2010 respectively. They have extended the limitation in this case. In view of the same the plaintiff's suit cannot be stated to be time barred.
Issue No.3 is decided in favour of the plaintiff.
Suit No. 231/11 Page 5 of 8... I S S U E No.1
Whether claim of the plaintiff is settled in full by the defendant?
8. Only averments have been made by the defendant in their written statement that the entire liability had been settled in full in the year 2008. However, there is no document to corroborate the same that the plaintiff had accepted the full and final settlement of any outstanding dues for Rs.5,00,000/.
This issue is therefore decided against the defendant. I S S U E No. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the outstanding amount?
9. The plaintiff has relied upon the statement of account Ex.P3(colly) giving detail of each and every transaction between the parties. As per the said statement a sum of Rs.8,72,015/ was outstanding against the defendant as on 17.03.2010. There is no evidence to demolish this statement of account or to show any abberation therein. The plaintiff is therefore entitled to the outstanding amount of Rs.8,72,015/. This issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff.
Suit No. 231/11 Page 6 of 8... I S S U E NO.4
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest? If so at what rate?
10. The plaintiff has claimed interest w.e.f. 17.03.2010 till 31.03.2011 @12% per annum amounting to Rs.1,06,642/. This being a commercial transaction, there is no reason for denying the plaintiff interest on the outstanding amount. The plaintiff is therefore, entitled to interest claimed in the suit.
This issue is therefore decided in favour of the plaintiff.
R E L I E F.
11. The suit of the plaintiff is therefore decreed for Rs.9,76,657/ as claimed in the suit together with costs and interest, pendente lite and furture @10% per annum.
12. Decree sheet be prepared. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced.
(Ina Malhotra) Addl.District JudgeI New Delhi District PHC:
NEW DELHI 15.03.2013 Suit No. 231/11 Page 7 of 8... Suit No.231/11
Present: Counsel for the parties.
Vide separate Judgment the suit of the plaintiff is decreed. Decree sheet be prepared. File be consigned to Record Room.
(Ina Malhotra) Addl.District JudgeI New Delhi District PHC:
NEW DELHI 15.03.2013 Suit No. 231/11 Page 8 of 8...