Delhi District Court
M/S Aipl Marketing Pvt Ltd vs M V Goodwin on 29 April, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANISH JAIN: CIVIL JUDGE
NORTH WEST: ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
M/s AIPL Marketing Pvt Ltd.
Through its Director Sh. Ajit Gupta
409, 4th Floor, D Mall, Netaji Subhash Place, Delhi
Also at:
M7, Aradhana Bhawan
Azadpur Commercial Complex
Opp. Akash Cinema, Azadpur, Delhi33Plaintiff
versus
M V Goodwin
Prop. of M/s Vins Corporations
Shop No. 2, Home Sweet Home
CHSL, Mori Road
Mahim, Mumbai400012 ...Defendant
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS 1,80,616/
Date of institution : 16.02.2015
Date of decision : 29.04.2019
Final Order : Decreed
EXPARTE JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS
1. Plaintiff is a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and Mr. Suneet Grover is the AR of the plaintiff company and is competent and authorized to institute and proceed in the present case. The plaintiff company deals in trading of different types of selfadhesive tapes and different types of auto and spare CS No. 60255/16 Page 1 of 4 parts. Defendant is the proprietor of M/s Vins Corporation a proprietorship concern who purchased self adhesive tapes and different types of auto and spare parts from the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant purchased the consignments from the plaintiff company on credit basis from time to time. However, the defendant deliberately and malifidely did not make payment of the said bills. It is further stated by the plaintiff that in order to discharge the liability and to liquidate their debts, defendant issued the cheque bearing no. 002419 dated 11.06.2014 for a sum of Rs 1,80,616/ drawn on Indian Bank, Branch Mahim West, Mumbai in favor of the plaintiff towards the outstanding dues/ bills. However, it is alleged by the plaintiff that on presenting the aforesaid cheque, it was dishonored vide returning memo dated 13.06.2014 with the remarks 'insufficient funds'. Time and again, plaintiff requested for the payment of the aforesaid amount but the defendants did not comply with the same. Ultimately, plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 24.06.2014 seeking recovery of the above amount which failed to produce the desired effect. Hence, the present suit for recovery of Rs 1,80,616/ has been filed by the plaintiff.
2. Defendant was served by way of publication in daily newspaper 'Nav Shakti' dated 26.10.2018. He never appeared in court and therefore, he was ultimately proceeded exparte on 23.04.2019. He remained exparte thereafter.
TRIAL
3. Plaintiff has examined its AR Sh. Suneet Grover as PW1 vide affidavit Ex. PW1/A wherein he reiterated the contents of the plaint and relied upon following CS No. 60255/16 Page 2 of 4 documents:
(i) Ex. PW1/1 (OSR) certificate of incorporation;
(ii) Ex. PW1/2 (OSR) copy of resolution;
(iii) Ex. PW1/3 - SPA;
(iv) Ex. PW1/4 - statement of account;
(v) Ex. PW1/5 - original cheque;
(vi) Ex. PW1/6 - returning memo;
(vii) Ex. PW1/7 (colly, 50 pages) - bills with GR;
(viii) Ex. PW1/8 to Ex. PW1/10 - legal notice, postal receipt, returned envelope.
3.1 He was not cross examined as the defendant remained exparte during trial.
No other witness was examined and PE stood closed on the same day. Heard. Perused.
FINDINGS
4. PW1 duly proved the contents of the plaint as well as the documents relied upon by him. His testimony to the effect that there were business dealing between the parties whereby the suit amount became due towards the defendant and which amount the defendant has failed to pay has gone unrebutted and uncontested in the absence of any cross examination on behalf of the defendant. The testimony of the witness has been duly corroborated by Ex. PW1/5 and Ex. PW1/6, which is the original cheque issued by the defendant and its returning memo, Ex. PW1/4, which is the statement of accounts generated by the plaintiff in the regular course of business CS No. 60255/16 Page 3 of 4 as well as the other documents including the invoices Ex. PW1/7 (colly) placed on record. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the same. The suit is otherwise well within limitation.
Plaintiff company has sought pendetelite and future interest @ 24% p.a. Given the commercial nature of the transaction, in my opinion, interest @ 18% p.a. would serve the ends of justice.
RELIEF
5. For the reasons assigned hereinabove, the plaintiff has successfully proved its case.
A decree for recovery of Rs. 1,80,616/ along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its actual realization is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Costs of the suit, including pleader's fee of Rs 5,000/, is also granted in favour of the plaintiff.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in open court today.
(Manish Jain) Civil Judge, North West Rohini Courts, Delhi 29.04.2019 CS No. 60255/16 Page 4 of 4