Delhi District Court
M/S Super Hoze Industries Pvt Ltd vs Madhu Enterprises on 1 October, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SHRI HIMANSHU RAMAN SINGH,
CIVIL JUDGE01, CENTRAL DISTRICT, DELHI
Old Suit No.138/12
New Suit No.596452/16
Unique Case ID No.020401C0529692012
M/s Super Hoze Industries Pvt Ltd
4th Floor, Hindi Bhawan,
Deen Dayal Upadhyay Marg,
11Rouse Avenue, New Delhi110002
Through Sh. Rajnish Kumar, Assistant Managar(Accounts)
... Plaintiff
Versus
Madhu Enterprises
F105, Sector8
Behind HCL Building
Gautam Budh Nagar
Noida201301, Uttar Pradesh
Through its Proprietor Sh. S. Ramesh ... Defendant
Date of institution of the suit : 08.11.2012
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 01.10.2016
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 65,435/
JUDGMENT
M/s Super Hoze Industries Pvt Ltd vs Madhu Enterprises, Old Case No.138/12, New Case No. 596452/16 Page 1 of 8
1. Vide order dated 14.12.2013, present suit was ordered to be treated as ordinary suit.
2. Necessary facts as gleaned from the plaint are that the plaintiff is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at 4 th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, DD Marg, New Delhi and is being represented by its Authorised Representative Sh. Rajnish Kumar being authorised by the Board of Directors of the Company vide Board Resolution dated 14.09.2012 to represent and appear before the Court and to do all necessary things related to the present matter.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff company that plaintiff company is engaged in manufacturing of medium, high pressure hydraulic hoses and general purpose industrial hozes and for this purpose, the plaintiff has a world class manufacturing facilities at Baddi, Himachal Pradesh and the plaintiff is maintaining all its business transactions like account books, invoicing etc in electronic medium at the corporate office located at New Delhi.
4. It is further the case of plaintiff company that the defendant is a sole proprietorship concern under the name and style of "Madhu M/s Super Hoze Industries Pvt Ltd vs Madhu Enterprises, Old Case No.138/12, New Case No. 596452/16 Page 2 of 8 Enterprises" (hereinafter referred to as defendants's firm) having its principal place of business at F105, Sector8, behind HCL Building, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida201301, UP and is being represented and managed by its proprietor Sh. S. Ramesh and interalia engaged in the distribution of LPG Gas.
5. It is further the case of the plaintiff company that upon an oral order at Delhi in accordance with normal business practices, defendant purchased Suraksha LPG Hozes/Pipes(herein after referred to as goods) from the plaintiff and the plaintiff supplied the desired quantities of goods to the defendant under bills/invoices raised by the plaintiff from time to time and the said business dealings between the parties were duly accounted in the Books of Account/Leger Account maintained by plaintiff at Delhi and the defendant had duly acknowledged, accepted and confirmed the delivery of products and had also made intermittent payments to the plaintiff against the said purchases by cheques payable at Delhi.
6. It is further the case of the plaintiff company that the defendant issued three cheques towards discharge of part liability against the purchases of the said products from the plaintiff. The said cheques were got dishonoured and were returned to the plaintiff on 16.09.2010, M/s Super Hoze Industries Pvt Ltd vs Madhu Enterprises, Old Case No.138/12, New Case No. 596452/16 Page 3 of 8 18.09.2010 and 18.09.2010 respectively for the reasons "Funds Insufficient".
7. It is further the case of the plaintiff company that a demand notice under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881 being Ref No. VLA/LND/2010 11/015 dated 25.09.2010 demanding payment of cheques amount within 15 days from the receipt of legal notice which were duly served to the defendant as well as to its proprietor on 29.09.2010 and defendant in compliance of the said notice, made payments to the plaintiff at Delhi which were duly credited in Bank Account of the plaintiff and duly credited in the Books of Account/Ledger Account maintained in electronic form.
8. It is further the case of the plaintiff company that as per Ledger Account maintained by the plaintiff company during normal course of business for the financial year 20112012, amount of Rs. 52,742/ as principal amount is due and recoverable from the defendant. The plaintiff reminded several times to defendant to clear the outstanding dues telephonically and through various emails, however, the defendant did not pay any heed to the said requests and has not cleared the outstanding dues from quite long time and hence the plaintiff is entitled M/s Super Hoze Industries Pvt Ltd vs Madhu Enterprises, Old Case No.138/12, New Case No. 596452/16 Page 4 of 8 to recover a sum of Rs. 65435/ from the defendant, which includes the interest calculated at the rate of 18% per annum upto the date of filing of the suit.
9. Defendant was served through publication on 24.04.2014. However, no Written Statement was filed by the defendant. On 30.07.2014, defendant was proceeded exparte and the matter was listed for exparte PE.
10. Plaintiff company examined Sh. Rajnish Kumar, Authorised Representative (AR) of the plaintiff company as PW1. He reiterated the facts as stated in the plaint and relied upon the following documents:
Ex.PW1/1 : Certified extracts of Board Resolution dated 14.09.2012 Ex.PW1/2 : Printout of Master Data obtained from the website of MCA Ex.PW1/3 : Certificate dated 05.11.2012 pertaining to Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. Ex.PW1/4 : Computer generated copy of invoice No. 000147 dated 15.03.2010 Ex.PW1/5(Colly) : Copies of cheques bearing no. 464705 dated 20.05.2010 for an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/, cheque bearing no. 464710 dated 30.05.2010 for amount of Rs.1,50,000/ and cheque bearing no.
M/s Super Hoze Industries Pvt Ltd vs Madhu Enterprises, Old Case No.138/12, New Case No. 596452/16 Page 5 of 8 464711 dated 03.06.2010 for an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/, all cheques drawn on Bank of Maharashtra(OSR) Ex.PW1/6(Colly) : Copies of report dated 16.09.2010 of return of cheque no. 464705 and report dated 18.09.2010 for cheque no. 464710 and 464711(OSR) Mark A : Copy of Legal Notice dated 27.09.2010 Ex.PW1/8 : Original postal receipts(Colly) Ex.PW1/9 : Service reports& AD Card(Colly) Ex.PW1/10 : Copy of Ledger Account/Statement of account period from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012
11. Despite opportunity, defendant failed to crossexamine PW1. On 18.05.2016 PE was closed.
12. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the plaintiff company and gone through the record carefully.
13. The suit is instituted within the period of limitation. This court has jurisdiction to try the suit. It is trite that failure of defendant to appear and plead its case does not ipso facto entitle the plaintiff company for decree in his favour as the plaintiff company has to prove its own case on the strength of evidence being adduced by it. In order to prove its case, the plaintiff has placed on record the copy of cheque bearing No. M/s Super Hoze Industries Pvt Ltd vs Madhu Enterprises, Old Case No.138/12, New Case No. 596452/16 Page 6 of 8 464711 dated 03.06.2010 for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/, cheque bearing no. 464710 dated 30.05.2010 for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/ and cheque bearing No. 464705 dated 20.05.2010 for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ issued by the defendant company in favour of the plaintiff company. Perusal of Ex.PW1/6(copy of return report) reflects that the said cheques got dishonoured.
14. The plaintiff company has placed on record statement of account from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012 to prove the liability of the defendant. Perusal of the record reflects that defendant has made last payment amounting to Rs. 13,500/ vide cheque no. 0553777 dated 24.06.2011 and due of amount of Rs. 52,742/.
15. Copy of tax invoice has also been placed on record by the plaintiff which is Ex.PW1/4.
16. The entire testimony of PW1 has gone unchallenged. I have no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW1. The plaintiff has been successful in proving the liability of the defendant.
17. In view of the above said reasons and discussion, plaintiff M/s Super Hoze Industries Pvt Ltd vs Madhu Enterprises, Old Case No.138/12, New Case No. 596452/16 Page 7 of 8 company is held entitled to recover a sum of Rs.52,742/ along with pendente lite interest @ 6% per annum from the defendant from the date of institution of suit till the date of decree.
No order as to cost.
Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after due completion.
Announced in the open court (Himanshu Raman Singh) today i.e. 01.10.2016 Civil Judge1, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi M/s Super Hoze Industries Pvt Ltd vs Madhu Enterprises, Old Case No.138/12, New Case No. 596452/16 Page 8 of 8