Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

M/S Online Micro Services Pvt. Ltd vs Spanco Bpo Services Limited on 14 December, 2016

 IN THE COURT OF MS. POOJA TALWAR, ADDL. SENIOR
 CIVIL JUDGE-CUM- JUDGE SMALL CAUSE COURT-CUM-
   GUARDIAN JUDGE, DISTRICT: SOUTH, NEW DELHI.

CS No.358/2012 (New CS No.84481/2016)
CNR No.DLST03-000258-2012

M/s Online Micro Services Pvt. Ltd.
Having its registered office at:-
546, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi-110017.
                                                                             ....PLAINTIFF
                                          Versus

Spanco BPO Services Limited
96/97, Neel Tower, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV,
Gurgaon- (Haryana)- 122015.
Regd. Office at:
Spance BPO Services Limited
B-22, Krishna Bhavan, B.S. Deoshi Marg,
Deonar, Mumbai-400088.
                                                                         ....DEFENDANT

         DATE OF INSTITUTION                                             : 18.09.2012
         DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT                                      : 14.12.2016
         DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT                                           : 14.12.2016

                        JUDGMENT (EX-PARTE)

1. This is a suit for recovery in the sum of Rs.1,86,546.30/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Six Thousands Five Hundred Forty Six and Thirty Paisa Only) alongwith future and pendente lite interest @18% per annum and cost in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

2. Brief facts for disposal of the present case are that plaintiff is a private limited company duly incorporated CS No.358/2012 M/s Online Micro Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Spanco BPO Services Ltd. Page 1 of 5 under the Companies Act, 1965. Plaintiff is running the business in the name and style of M/s Online Micro Services Pvt. Ltd. and is engaged in business of providing IT solutions and installation of networking equipments/ components and other IT related installations. Plaintiff accepted the offer of the defendant for providing networking at Spanco BPO Services Ltd. Defendant placed orders on 14.12.2009, 07.07.2010, 15.07.2014, 24.07.2010 and 04.08.2010. Defendant took the goods and services from the plaintiff from 13.01.2010 to 27.08.2010. Plaintiff supplied materials and services to the defendant as per the defendant's satisfaction from time to time and the same has been accepted by the defendant. Defendant has received the goods and services of Rs.53,56,769.04 and made the payment of Rs.52,18,842.00. So, Rs.1,37,927.04 is still due upon the defendant.

3. It is further stated in the plaint that plaintiff has made several requests to the defendant but defendant did not make balance payment of Rs.1,37,927.04. Plaintiff was constrained to issue a legal notice dated 03.04.2012 but despite service of the notice, defendant failed to make the payment. Total amount payable alongwith interest @18% on the principle amount i.e. Rs.1,37,927.04 at the time of filing of the present suit is Rs.1,86,846.30.

4. Defendants contested the suit by filing their written CS No.358/2012 M/s Online Micro Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Spanco BPO Services Ltd. Page 2 of 5 statement. It is stated in the written statement that present suit is lacks territorial jurisdiction. Defendants have also denied various allegations made in the plaint which are part of record.

5. It is a matter of record that during the course of the proceedings defendant was proceeded ex-parte on 04.08.2016.

6. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and perused the material available on record carefully.

7. To support the case, plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and tendered his affidavit as Ex.PW-1/1 and has relied upon documents Ex.PW-1/A to Ex.PW-1/D andf Mark- D to Mark-D.

8. It is a matter of record that ex-parte PE was closed on 24.10.2016.

9. PW-1 has proved on oath all the allegations against the defendant as the testimony of PW-1 remained unchallenged and unrebutted. There is no reason to doubt the testimony of PW-1. The present suit was filed on the basis of various documents which are part of record and some of the documents have also bear the stamp of defendant company. As far as contention of the defendant in regard to jurisdiction of this court is concerned, the plaintiff has relied upon a document which is a purchase CS No.358/2012 M/s Online Micro Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Spanco BPO Services Ltd. Page 3 of 5 order of the defendant. As per the said document, this court has the jurisdiction to try the present case.

10. Furthermore, the plaintiff sent a notice dated 03.04.2012 i.e. Ex.PW-1/B to the defendant seeking return of due amount and the same was served upon the defendant. Despite service of notice, defendant has failed to pay the dues of plaintiff. It has been held in case of Kalu Ram Vs. Sita Ram 1980 RLR (Note) 44 that if the plaintiff before filing suit makes serious assertions in a notice to the defendant then the defendant must not remain silent by ignoring to reply, if he does so then adverse inference may be raised against him. In the light of law laid out in Kalu Ram's case (supra), I draw adverse inference against the defendant. Hence, the issue is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

RELIEF

11. In view of the above-stated discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed against defendant. Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.1,86,546.30/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Six Thousands Five Hundred Forty Six and Thirty Paisa Only) alongwith pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of institution of suit till the realization of decreetal amount. Cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

12. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.

13. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.

(Pooja Talwar) JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi.

Announced in the open court today i.e 14th December, 2016.