Delhi District Court
Sh. M.L. Bagga vs M/S Alpha Stone Works on 11 May, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANU AGGARWAL,
ASCJJSCCGJ (SHAHDARA),
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Suit No.: 7679/16
IN THE MATTER OF:
Sh. M.L. Bagga
Prop. Of M/s Bagson
Head Office
78, South Anarkali,
Near Chander Nagar,
Delhi 110051.
......Plaintiff
VERSUS
M/s Alpha Stone Works
Through its Proprietor
At 24, Avadi Main Road,
Kaduvetti, Veeraraghavapuram,
Chennai 77.
PIN No. 04268000938.
......Defendant
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 07.05.2014
DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : 03.05.2018
DATE OF DECISION : 11.04.2018
DECISION : Decreed
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs.2,51,889/ (RUPEES TWO
LAC FIFTY ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED
EIGHTY NINE ONLY) PLUS INTEREST
EXPARTE JUDGMENT
1.By this judgment, I shall dispose off suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of amount of Rs.2,51,889/ (Rupees Two Lac Fifty One Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Nine Only) plus interest.
Suit No. 7679/16 M. L. Bagga vs. Alpha Stone Works Page No. 1/62. Facts necessary for disposal of present suit as per plaint are as follows:
(a) Plaintiff is proprietor of "Bagson" having its Head Office at 78, South Anarkali, Chander Nagar, Delhi 110051 and its factory at 18/35, Industrial Area, Sahibabad, District, Ghaziabad, UP.
(b) It is alleged that as per the order placed by the plaintiff from his Head Office, the defendant delivered granite slabs worth Rs.2,51,889/ through Truck No. TN52B 4424 at the factory of plaintiff and against delivery of the above said material, the plaintiff paid Rs.1 lac as advance by cheque and paid balance amount by way of Internet transfer.
(c) It is further alleged that at the checking stage, the above said material/goods was rejected by the plaintiff and the said fact was immediately informed by the plaintiff to the defendant telephonically and emails dated 13.08.2013 and 16.08.2013 were also sent to the defendant in this regard.
(d) However, the defendant neither took rejected material nor gave any satisfactory reply to the plaintiff. It is stated on 11.09.2013, plaintiff issued legal notice to the defendant but defendant did not repay the amount of the goods. Hence, the present suit.
3. After service of the summons, the defendant appeared and filed his written statement. The defendant took following pleas in his written statement: 3.1 It is stated that this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit as the entire transaction took place outside Delhi. It is stated that plaintiff has debited a sum of Rs.94,873/ vide Suit No. 7679/16 M. L. Bagga vs. Alpha Stone Works Page No. 2/6 debit note no.001 dt. 21.08.2013 from the defendant account and has compensated himself for the defected material. It is stated that the plaintiff did not return the material and therefore, is not entitled to any amount. It is stated that the defendant duly replied to the legal notice.
4. Out of the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed on 14.010.2014.
Issue no.1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.2,51,889/?OPP Issue no.2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for pendentelite and future interest, if so, at what rate?OPP Issue no.3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this court?OPD Issue no.4. Relief.
5. Thereafter, the defendant stopped appearing and was proceeded exparte vide order dt. 21.07.2016.
6. The plaintiff examined himself in exparte evidence as PW1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/1. He has relied upon the following documents :
1. Copy of certificate of importer Exporter Code Ex.PW1/A1.
2. Copy of certificate issued by Directorate of Industries MarkB.
3. Copy of invoice dt. 03.08.2013 Ex.PW1/C2.
4. Copy of Cargo booking dt. 03.08.2013 Ex.PW1/C1.
5. Computerized copy of NEFT funds transfer dt.
Suit No. 7679/16 M. L. Bagga vs. Alpha Stone Works Page No. 3/602.08.2013 Ex.PW1/A.
6. Computerized copy of NEFT funds transfer dt. 03.08.2013 Ex.PW1/B.
7. Computerized copy of ledger A/C Ex.PW1/C.
8. Emails dt. 13.08.2013 and 16.08.2013 Ex.PW1/D.
9. Legal notice dt. 11.09.2013 Ex.PW1/E. 10. Postal receipt of the legal notice is Ex.PW1/F.
7. Plaintiff has examined Sh. Vivek Bagga as PW2, who has tendered his affidavit as Ex.PW2/1. He has relied upon the documents already exhibited as PW1/D in the evidence of PW1/1.
8. No other witness was examined by the plaintiff and Exparte evidence was closed vide order dated 05.02.2018.
9.. I have heard the arguments and have gone through the case file.
10. My issuewise findings are as follows: Issue no.1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.2,51,889/?OPP The defendant has not disputed that he supplied granites slabs to the plaintiff. He has also not denied that a payment of Rs.2, 51,889/ was made by the plaintiff to defendant company for the abovesaid transaction. The plaintiff has stated that the material was found defected on checking and defendant was informed vide Email dt. 13.08.2013 and 16.08.2013 Ex.PW1/D. The same has not been denied by the defendant in the written statement. The plaintiff has stated that the defendant neither took rejected material nor gave any Suit No. 7679/16 M. L. Bagga vs. Alpha Stone Works Page No. 4/6 satisfactory answer to the plaintiff. The same has not been denied by the defendant in the WS. Therefore, the defendant has not denied that the goods supplied by him were defective and that same was duly communicated to him by the plaintiff. The defendant has also not denied that he did not take the rejected material from the plaintiff. The defendant has not denied of receiving of Emails Ex.PW1/D. The defendant has admitted that he had received the legal notice Ex.PW1/E. He has stated that he had replied to the same. The said reply is dt. 21.09.2013. The perusal of the said reply reflects that nowhere the contention of the plaintiff as stated in his legal notice with respect to the material being defective and rejected has been denied by the defendant. The testimony of the plaintiff has gone unrebutted and it is proved that defendant supplied defective material to the plaintiff. Despite of the communication being sent to the defndant that material has been rejected, the defendant firm did not take the material and did not return the purchase amount to the plaintiff. In view of the same this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and as against the defendant.
Issue no.2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for pendentelite and future interest, if so, at what rate?OPP In view of findings of issue no.1, the plaintiff is entitled to pendentelite and future interest @ 9% per annum.
Issue no.3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this court?OPD The defendant did not led any evidence to prove that this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. Hence, this issue is decided as against the defendant.
Suit No. 7679/16 M. L. Bagga vs. Alpha Stone Works Page No. 5/6Issue no.4. Relief.
The suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a sum of Rs.2,51,889/ along with pendentelite and future interest @ 9% per annum. Cost of the suit is also awarded. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally
signed by
(Typed under my direct dictation ANU
and announced in open Court ANU AGGARWAL
Delhi Dated the 11.05.2018) AGGARWAL Date:
2018.05.11
This Judgment contains 6 pages 15:36:12
+0530
and each paper is signed by me.
(ANU AGGARWAL)
ASCJJSCCGJ (SHAHDARA)
KKD Courts, Delhi
Suit No. 7679/16 M. L. Bagga vs. Alpha Stone Works Page No. 6/6