Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Tool Tech India Pvt. Ltd. vs . Preet Machines Limited on 28 September, 2022

                                                                       CS SCJ1059/18
                              TOOL TECH INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. PREET MACHINES LIMITED

   IN THE COURT OF MS. NEHA SHARMA, CIVIL JUDGE-01 (SOUTH)
                  SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI


                        Civil Suit No :-   1059/18
                        CNR No.      :-    DLST03-001763-2018


TOOL TECH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
Through its director,
Sh. H. Pankaj Mahajan
F-111, Lado Sarai,
New Delhi-110030                                           ..........PLAINTIFF


                                      VERSUS

PREET MACHINES LIMITED
Through its directors,
Gurmeet Singh Chauhan (Managing Director)
Preet Singh Chauhan (Director)
Satish Chhabra (Director)
Having its registered office at:-
Plot No. 8, Savita Vihar
(East Delhi), Delhi-110092


Also at:-
D-14&15, Sector A-3,
Tronica City Industrial Area
Distt. Loni, Ghaziabad, U.P. 201102                      ..........DEFENDANT


       SUIT FOR RECOVERY FOR OF RS. 2,68,000/- ALONG WITH
     PENDENTELITE AND FUTURE INTEREST @ 12% PER ANNUM.

EX-PARTE JUDGMENT: -



Page no. 1 of 7


                                                             (Neha Sharma)
                                                     CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi
                                                                                 CS SCJ1059/18
                                       TOOL TECH INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. PREET MACHINES LIMITED

1.

The present suit (originally filed as a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC which was converted into an ordinary civil suit vide order dated 01.12.2018) is filed for recovery of Rs. 2,68,000/- alongwith pendentelite and fu- ture interest @ 12% per annum.

AVERMENTS OF THE PLAINT:

2. It is the case of the plaintiff that it is a private limited company and in the year 2014, plaintiff started business transactions with the defendant company wherein it used to provide all the engineering support to the defendant. Upon purchase orders dated 07.11.2014, 27.01.2015, 09.02.2015, 26.02.2015, 09.03.2015 and 11.04.2015 plaintiff supplied various goods to the defendant company which were duly received by the defendant. Invoices were issued, ledger account was maintained as per the goods supplied to the defendant, however, defendant stopped making payment despite repeated requests. Various emails were also sent to the defendant from 2015 to 2018 demanding C form and for clearing the outstanding bills of rupees 2 lakh. However, defendant did not discharge its liability.

3. Thereafter, a legal notice dated 01.08.2018 was served upon the defendant, however, defendant neither replied to the said notice nor paid the amount, but only an email of C form was received from the defendant's side in the month of August, 2018. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as principal amount and Rs. 68,000/- as pre lite interest till the filing of the present suit. Having left with no other option, present suit was filed seeking relief in paragraph no. 1 of the judgment.

AVERMENTS OF WRITTEN STATEMENT:

4. Per contra, the case of the defendant is that in the year 2014, plaintiff started business transactions with the defendant company. However, defendant company had rejected the goods and material which was supplied by the plaintiff. Page no. 2 of 7 (Neha Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ1059/18 TOOL TECH INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. PREET MACHINES LIMITED The rejected goods were sent back to the plaintiff, however, plaintiff refused to receive the same. Hence, the present suit is liable to dismissed as same has been filed without any cause of action as defendant is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff.

REPLICATION

5. In replication, averments of the plaint have been reiterated and contents of the written statement have been denied.

6. From the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 10.12.2019:-

1. Whether the defendant has illegally refused to pay Rs. 2 lacs in respect of the goods supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of amount of Rs. 2,68,000/- towards the principal amount and pre lite interest? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to pendente lite and future interest on the amount of Rs. 2,68,000/-? If yes, at what rate? OPP

4. Relief.

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE:

7. To prove his case, the AR of the plaintiff stepped into the witness box as PW1 and tendered his affidavit as Ex.PW1/A. He placed reliance upon the following documents:

(i) Ex. PW1/1 i.e. Original board resolution dated 24.09.18;

(ii) Ex. PW1/2 (colly) i.e. Computer generated copy of company master data of defendant;

(iii) Ex. PW1/3 (colly) (OSR) i.e. Computer generated copy of invoices (pg. 26, 28, 30, 31, 33, 35, 37, 39, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49 & 51);

(iv) Ex. PW1/4 i.e. Computer generated copy of ledger account;

(v) Ex. PW1/5 (colly) i.e. Computer generated copy of purchase orders sent Page no. 3 of 7 (Neha Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ1059/18 TOOL TECH INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. PREET MACHINES LIMITED through e-mail;

(vi) Ex. PW1/6 (colly) i.e. Computer generated e-mails (pg no. 55 to 69);

(vii) Ex. PW1/8 i.e. Legal notice dated 01.08.18;

(viii) Ex. PW1/9 i.e. Postal receipt; and

(ix) Ex. PW1/10 i.e. Certificate u/S 65B of IEA.

8. Despite various opportunities, PW1 was not cross examined by the defendant. The right of defendant to cross-examine PW1 was closed vide order dated 22.04.2022. Thereafter, vide separate statement of AR of the plaintiff, PE was closed vide order dated 22.04.2022.

DEFENCE EVIDENCE:

9. Despite various opportunities, defendant failed to appear and lead evidence. The defendant was proceeded ex parte for non-appearance vide order dated 22.04.2022.

FINAL ARGUMENTS

10. Ld. Counsel of the plaintiff presented his ex-parte final arguments in accordance with the pleadings on 02.08.2022. I have carefully perused the entire case record including the pleadings and evidence. I have also gone through the prevailing law in this regard and have heard the submissions of the learned counsels of both the parties. My issues-wise findings are as under:

Whether the defendant has illegally refused to pay Rs. 2 lacs in respect of the goods supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant? OPP AND ISSUE NO. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of amount of Rs. 2,68,000/- towards the principal amount and pre lite interest? OPP

11. As both the issues require common discussion of law and fact, they are taken up together. The onus to prove these issues is upon the plaintiff. In order to prove these issues, plaintiff has examined the AR as PW-1 and placed reliance Page no. 4 of 7 (Neha Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ1059/18 TOOL TECH INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. PREET MACHINES LIMITED upon Ex. PW1/1 i.e. Original board resolution dated 24.09.18; Ex. PW1/2 i.e. Computer generated copy of company master data of defendant; Ex. PW1/3 i.e. Computer generated copy of invoices; Ex. PW1/4 i.e. Computer generated copy of ledger account; Ex. PW1/5 i.e. Computer generated copy of purchase orders sent through e-mail; Ex. PW1/6 i.e. Computer generated e-mails; Ex. PW1/8 i.e. Legal notice dated 01.08.18; Ex. PW1/9 i.e. Postal receipt; and Ex. PW1/10 i.e. Certificate u/S 65B of IEA.

12. The perusal of Ex. PW1/1 i.e. original board resolution dated 24.09.18 shows that Sh. Pankaj Mahajan has been duly authorized to file and pursue the present suit. Ex. PW1/5 i.e. Computer generated copy of purchase orders sent through e-mail and Ex. PW1/3 i.e. Computer generated copy of invoices dated 17.11.2014, 17.01.2015, 27.01.2015, 03.02.2015, 05.02.2015, 18.02.2015, 24.02.2015, 02.03.2015, 09.03.2015, 24.03.2015, 28.03.2015, 01.04.2015 and 23.04.2015 supported by certificate under Section 65B IEA show that a contractual relationship was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant as per the terms and conditions contained in the invoice. Ex. PW1/4 i.e. copy of ledger account statement from 01.04.2014 to 20.02.2017 duly supported by a certificate under Section 65B IEA show that an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- is due and payable by the defendant as on 20.02.2017 which was demanded by the plaintiff via various emails exhibited as Ex. PW1/6 duly supported by a certificate under Section 65B IEA and Ex. PW1/8 i.e. Legal notice dated 01.08.18 which was duly addressed to the defendant as shown by Ex. PW1/9 i.e. Postal receipt. However, defendant failed to discharge its liability.

13. The defence of the defendant is that the goods of the plaintiff were rejected by the defendant company and returned to the plaintiff but the plaintiff refused to receive the goods. In support of its case, the copy of email dated 27.03.2015 and copy of Minutes of Meeting dated 31.03.2015 have been filed Page no. 5 of 7 (Neha Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ1059/18 TOOL TECH INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. PREET MACHINES LIMITED however, the email dated 27.03.2015 is not supported by certificate under Section 65B IEA and the original Minutes of Meeting dated 31.03.2015 have not been produced. Thus, these documents filed by the defendant cannot be read in evidence.

14. The defendant appeared through its counsel on 04.07.2019 and on subsequent dates of hearing however, despite knowledge of proceedings in the present suit, defendant neither cross examined PW-1 nor challenged the documents placed on record by the plaintiff. The testimony of PW1 has gone unchallenged, uncontroverted and unrebutted. Since PW1 was not cross examined by defendant and no evidence was led by the defendant, there is nothing on record which casts any doubt on the testimony of PW-1. In the absence of any reason to disbelieve the averments of plaint and annexed documents in that regard, it is proved that the defendant is liable to pay Rs. 2,68,000/- as principal amount along with interest till the date of the filing of the suit. Thus, issue no. 1 and 2 are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to pendente lite and future interest on the amount of Rs. 2,68,000/-? If yest, at what rate? OPP

15. The onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff. As regards interest, plaintiff has claimed interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the present suit till actual realization of the amount. Since, the present suit pertains to commercial transaction, in the opinion of this court, granting interest at the rate of 12% per annum to the plaintiff from date of filing of the suit till date of decree and @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till actual realization would meet the ends of justice.

Relief.

16. In view of the findings on the aforesaid issues, suit of plaintiff is Page no. 6 of 7 (Neha Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ1059/18 TOOL TECH INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. PREET MACHINES LIMITED hereby decreed with cost against the defendant to the effect that plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs. 2,68,000/- from the defendant along with costs and interest @ 12% per annum to be calculated from the date of institution of suit till date of date of decree and @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till actual realization. Defendant shall pay the said amount within two months from the date of decree failing which plaintiff shall be entitled to approach the court for satisfaction of decree.

17. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly and file be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.

Pronounced in open court:

Dated: 28.09.2022.

(Neha Sharma) CJ-01(South)Saket/New Delhi/28.09.2022 Note: -This judgment contains seven pages and all the pages have been checked and signed by me.

(Neha Sharma) CJ-01(South)Saket/New Delhi/28.09.2022.

Page no. 7 of 7 (Neha Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi