Delhi District Court
M/S A K Associates vs M/S Cinema Ventures Ltd on 22 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANU GROVER BALIGA,
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT-04),
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI.
CS (COMM.) 146/23
M/s A.K. Associates Vs. M/s Cinema Ventures Ltd.
In the matter of:
M/S A.K. ASSOCIATES
Through Its Sole Proprietor Ms. Veena
Office at I-327/13, Hari Nagar Extn,
Jaitpur Road, Hari Nagar,
Delhi-110044. ....Plaintiff
Versus
M/s Cinema Ventures Ltd.
The Great India Place Mall,
Plot No. A-2, Sector-38A,
Entertainment City, NOIDA,
Uttar Pradesh-201301
Email : [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected] ....Defendant
Date of institution : 13.02.2023
Date of reserving judgment : 05.04.2025
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 22.04.2025
EX-PARTE JUDGMENT
1.This is a suit filed seeking recovery of Rs. 8,04,889/- along with pendente lite and future interest. It is relevant to mention herein that suit was initially filed against 04 Defendants on the assertion that the Plaintiff had provided certain services to Defendant No. 4 Company and Defendant No. 1, 2 and 3 were arrayed on the basis that they were the Directors of Defendant No. 4 Company. However on 13.02.2023, Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff on a query raised by this Court had submitted that he be allowed to delete Defendant No. 1 to 3 CS (Comm.) No. 146/23 M/s A.K. Associates Vs. M/s Cinema Ventures Ltd. Page 1 of 7 ANU Digitally signed by ANU GROVER GROVER BALIGA Date: 2025.04.23 BALIGA 15:48:02 +0530 from the array of parties. In view of the said prayer, the Plaintiff amended its memo of parties and the suit was continued only against Defendant Company M/s Cinema Ventures Ltd.
2. Briefly stated, the material averments on the basis of which the present suit has been filed against the Defendant Company are as follows:-
(a) The Plaintiff Ms. Veena, the Proprietor of M/s A.K. Associates is engaged in the business of interior decoration and civil contract works.
(b) The Defendant Company is engaged in the business of cinema exhibition, accounting and market research etc and had sought the services of the Plaintiff for the decoration and maintenance of its various cinema halls on turnkey basis.
(c) The Plaintiff duly provided its services and material from time to time to the Defendant Company and also raised invoices with respect to the same. In order to discharge its liability, the Defendant Company issued 02 cheques bearing no.
985480 dated 20.03.2020 and bearing no. 985481 dated 20.04.2020 for Rs. 4 Lakhs and Rs.
4,04,889/- respectively in favour of the Plaintiff. The said cheques were however dishonoured on presentation.
(d) The Plaintiff duly informed the Defendant
Company about the dishonour of cheques and
CS (Comm.) No. 146/23 M/s A.K. Associates Vs. M/s Cinema Ventures Ltd. Page 2 of 7
Digitally signed
ANU by ANU
GROVER
GROVER BALIGA
BALIGA Date: 2025.04.23
15:48:10 +0530
demanded that it pay an amount of Rs. 8,04,889/-
to the Plaintiff alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. When the Defendant Company failed to pay any amount to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff instituted pre- institution mediation. The Defendant Company failed to attend the said proceedings and hence the present suit.
3. It is relevant to mention that though the suit was filed under the provisions of Order 37 CPC, on request of Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff it was treated as ordinary suit and summons of the suit were sent to the Defendant Company for 13.09.2023. Vide order dated 21.05.2024, the Defendant Company was proceeded ex-parte by this Court when it did not appear despite service.
4. In support of its case the Plaintiff has examined its authorized representative Sh. Yoginder Bhushan. The said witness has placed on record the letter dated 04.02.2023 vide which the Plaintiff Ms. Veena being the Proprietor of M/s A.K. Associates has authorized him to depose on her behalf in the present suit. The said authority letter has been given Ex. PW1/2. The said representative has placed on record the work orders placed by the Defendant Company upon the Plaintiff and the tax invoices raised by the Plaintiff. As per the deposition of this witness, the same have been given Ex. PW1/3 (colly) and Ex. PW1/4 (colly). This witness has interalia deposed that the Plaintiff had sent 02 mails dated 05.02.2021 and 06.02.2021 calling upon the Defendant Company to pay the amount of Rs. 8,04,889/- to the Plaintiff alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. and pursuant thereto the Defendant Company had issued 02 cheques cheques bearing no. 985480 dated 20.03.2020 and bearing no. 985481 dated 20.04.2020. He has further deposed that the said cheques were dishonoured on presentation. The copies of the cheques and the return memos as per the CS (Comm.) No. 146/23 M/s A.K. Associates Vs. M/s Cinema Ventures Ltd. Page 3 of 7 ANU Digitally signed by ANU GROVER GROVER BALIGA Date: 2025.04.23 BALIGA 15:48:17 +0530 deposition of the said witness had been given Ex. PW1/7. The legal notice issued by the Plaintiff demanding the suit amount from the Defendant Company has been given Ex. PW1/8 as per the deposition of this witness.
5. Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff Sh. Satya Van has submitted that since none has appeared on behalf of the Defendant to controvert the statements made by the Plaintiff on oath and the documentary evidence proved on record, the assertions made in the plaint should be taken to have been proved and the suit of the Plaintiff must be decreed.
6. He has further submitted that the suit has been filed within the period of limitation, for the 02 cheques on the basis of which the present suit has been filed are dated 20.03.2020 and dated 20.04.2020 and the present suit has been filed on 13.02.2023. He has further submitted that the e-mails sent by the Defendant to the Plaintiff acknowledging its liability, (part of Ex. PW1/7) makes it clear that the Defendant had sent the 02 cheques in question through courier. He submits that in view thereof, the cheques received through courier in Delhi gives rise to a part of cause of action in Delhi and that therefore this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit. In support of the said contention he has placed reliance on the following 02 judgments :-
(a) Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay South, Bombay v.
Ogale Glass Works Limited, Ogal Wadi, (1954) 1 Supreme Court Cases 740
(b) A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. A.P. Agencies, Saleem, (1989) 2 Supreme Court Cases 163
7. I have perused the entire records and I have also gone through judicial dicta referred to by Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff. In the case of CS (Comm.) No. 146/23 M/s A.K. Associates Vs. M/s Cinema Ventures Ltd. Page 4 of 7 ANU Digitally signed by ANU GROVER GROVER BALIGA Date: 2025.04.23 BALIGA 15:48:23 +0530 Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) (the judgment relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that in case there is no request, express or implied by the creditor to the debtor that the cheques are to be sent through post to him, the delivery of the cheque by the Debtor to the post office is delivery to the agent of the debtor himself. Now in the present case the evidence brought on record reflects that there was no request by the Plaintiff to the Defendant Company that the Defendant Company should deliver the cheques to the Plaintiff through post. The communication by the Plaintiff to the Defendant Company only asked for the outstanding amount of Rs. 8,04,889/- payable by the Defendant. The e-mail dated 21.10.2019, (a part of Ex. PW1/7) reflects that it is the Defendant Company which on its own sent the cheques through courier to the Plaintiff Company. In such view, as per the judicial dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the cheques are deemed to have been received by the Plaintiff in its office in New Delhi. The said fact therefore clearly gives rise to a part of cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. As such this Court is satisfied that it does have the territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit.
8. As regards the merits of the case, it has been rightly pointed out by Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff that the entire evidence put forward by the witness of the Plaintiff on record goes unrebutted and therefore is to be accepted as true by this Court. The documentary evidence, in particular the purchase orders placed by the Defendant upon the Plaintiff, the invoices raised by the Plaintiff, the statement of account maintained by the Plaintiff and the cheques issued by the Defendant Company in favour of the Plaintiff firm, all clearly prove that the Defendant Company was liable to pay an amount of Rs. 8,04,889/- to the Plaintiff in consideration of the services rendered to it by the Plaintiff. In view of the said facts, the Plaintiff is therefore held entitled to the principal amount of CS (Comm.) No. 146/23 M/s A.K. Associates Vs. M/s Cinema Ventures Ltd. Page 5 of 7 ANU Digitally signed by ANU GROVER GROVER BALIGA Date: 2025.04.23 BALIGA 15:48:32 +0530 Rs. 8,04,889/-.
9. As regards interest, Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff has urged that this Court must award the same @ 24% per annum, for the invoices raised by the Plaintiff categorically contain a term that the Defendant would be liable to pay interest @ 24% per annum on delayed payments. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said invoices cannot be deemed to be a written agreement between the parties regarding the rate of interest for the invoices do not bear the signatures of the Defendant. It thus cannot be stated that the parties had agreed that in case of delayed payments, the Defendant Company had agreed to pay interest @ 24% per annum on the due payments.
10. Having said so, the Plaintiff is to be held entitled to interest @ 18% p.a. on the cheque amounts, in view of the provisions of Section 80 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The same provide as follows:
"Section 80 - The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
80. Interest when no rate specified. - When no rate of interest is specified in the instrument, interest on the amount due thereon shall, [notwithstanding any agreement relating to interest between any parties to the instrument], be calculated at the rate of 18[eighteen per centum] per annum, from the date at which the same ought to have been paid by the party charged, until tender or realization of the amount due thereon, or until such date after the institution of a suit to recover such amount as the Court directs. Explanation.--When the party charged is the indorser of an instrument dishonoured by non-payment, he is liable to pay interest only from the time that he receives notice of the dishonour."
11. In the present case, as per the deposition of the Authorised Representative of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff had sent a legal notice dated 02.12.2022 via Speed Post and e-mail to the Defendant calling upon him to pay the cheque amounts to the Plaintiff. It is also the deposition of the Authorised Representative of the Plaintiff that the said legal notice was duly served upon the Defendant on 05.12.2022 and in this respect, he has placed on record the CS (Comm.) No. 146/23 M/s A.K. Associates Vs. M/s Cinema Ventures Ltd. Page 6 of 7 ANU Digitally signed by ANU GROVER GROVER BALIGA Date: 2025.04.23 BALIGA 15:48:38 +0530 tracking reports which have been given Ex.PW1/8 (Collectively). Keeping in view the said deposition and the documents proved on record and the provisions of Section 80 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Plaintiff is hereby held entitled for the interest @18% per annum w.e.f. 05.12.2022 (the date of service of the legal notice upon the Defendant as per the postal reports filed) till the date of filing of the present suit i.e. 09.02.2023.
12. As regards the pendente lite and future interest, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff has submitted that in terms of Section 34 of CPC, since the liability in relation to the sum adjudged has arisen out of a commercial transaction, this Court must award interest at the rate of 10% per annum for the same is the rate on which moneys are lent and advanced by nationalised banks in relation to commercial transactions. Taking into consideration that many suits are pending in this Court wherein nationalized banks are claiming recovery of unpaid loan amounts along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum, the aforesaid contention of the learned Counsel is accepted.
13. As such, the suit of the Plaintiff is hereby decreed against the Defendant Company for an amount of Rs. 8,04,889/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Four Thousand, Eight Hundred and Eighty Nine Only). Interest on the principal amount adjudged of Rs. 8,04,889/- is allowed @18% per annum from 05.12.2022 till the date of filing of the suit i.e. 09.02.2023. Pendente lite and future interest is awarded at the rate of 10% per annum, on the principal amount adjudged of Rs. 8,04,889/-. Costs of the suit are also allowed. Decree Sheet be Digitally signed prepared accordingly.
ANU by ANU GROVER
GROVER BALIGA
Date: 2025.04.23
Announced in the open court BALIGA 15:48:46 +0530
on 22nd April, 2025. (Anu Grover Baliga)
District Judge (Commercial Court-04)
South-East/Saket Court
New Delhi
CS (Comm.) No. 146/23 M/s A.K. Associates Vs. M/s Cinema Ventures Ltd. Page 7 of 7