Bangalore District Court
Sixth Energy Technologies Pvt vs ) Tbs India Telematic And Biomedical ... on 18 July, 2018
Govt. of Karnataka
C.R.P.67]
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENT IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
Form No.9 MAYOHALL UNIT, BANGALORE
(Civil)
Title sheet for
Judgment in Present: Sri. B.NARAYANAPPA, M.A, LL.B.,
suits (R.P.91)
(Name of the Presiding Judge)
OS NO. 25055 / 2012
(CCH-22)
Plaintiff/s:- Sixth Energy Technologies Pvt., Ltd.,
Formerly known as Neureol Technologies Pvt., Ltd.,
Having its registered office at No.4, Pamadi Towers, 1st Main
Road, Gandhinagar, Bangalore 560 009 and having its earlier
corporate office at No.367, 11th cross, R.T. Nagar, Bangalore 560
032 and presently having its corporate office at No.62, 10th Main,
HMT Layout, R.T.Nagar, Bangalore 560 032
V/s. (By Sri D.O. Kotresh, Advocate)
Defendants:- 1) TBS India Telematic and Biomedical Services Pvt. Ltd.,
formerly known as MNE Technologies Pvt., Ltd., registered
office at No.201-210 'C' wing, 2nd floor,
Mittal Towers, M.G. Rroad, Bangalore, 560 001.
2) R. Venkatesh Kumar Vellor Natarajan,
Director : TBS India Telematic and Biomedical Services
Pvt. Ltd., formerly known as MNE technologies Pvt. Ltd.,
No.14-D, Diamond District, Airport Road, Kodihalli,
Bangalore 560 017.
[Defendant No.2 Deleted as per orders dt 20.03.2014]
(Defendant No.1 By Sri Laxminarayan N. Hegde, Advocate)
Date of Institution of the suit 5.1.2012
Nature of the (Suit or pro-note, suit for declaration and
possession, suit for injunction, etc.)
Money suit
Date of the commencement of recording of the Evidence 5.2.2016
Date on which the Judgment was pronounced. 18.7.2018
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration 6 6 13
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
Mayohall Unit: Bengaluru
.
2 O.S.No. 25055 / 2012
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit against defendants for recovery of money of Rs.1,65,160/- [Rupees one lakh sixty five thousand one hundred and sixty only] together with court costs and current interest at 18% p.a. on the principal sum of Rs.1,04,000/- [Rupees one lakh four thousand only] from the date of suit, till the date of payment.
2) Brief facts of plaintiff's case are that:
The plaintiff is a registered company under the Companies Act, 1956 and manufacturers and dealers of remote monitoring sensors / devices for various applications carrying on their business at Bengaluru. The defendant No.1 is a registered company and it was earlier known as MNE Technologies Pvt., Ltd., and recently it has been renamed as TBS India Telematic and Biomedical Services Pvt.Ltd. Defendant No.1 being one of the customers of the plaintiff used to purchase goods on credit basis. On 3.3.2008 vide purchase order No.4258 defendant No.1 placed orders through e-mail with the plaintiff company for supply of 3 O.S.No. 25055 / 2012 hardware and firmware package per point of 8 Nos. of ENVIRO ALERT Remote Real Time Monitoring of Temperature / Pressure / Humidity / Parameters on WEB based solution for Rs.1,04,000/-. Accordingly the plaintiff vide Credit Invoice No.NTPL.013/08-09 dated 6.1.2009 for Rs.1,04,000/- has supplied and delivered Hardware and Firmware package per point of 8 Nos. of ENVIRO ALERT Remote Real Time Monitoring of Temperature / Pressure / Humidity / Parameters on WEB based solution to defendant No.1 on credit at Rs.12,500/- each and VAT of Rs.4,000/- each, aggregating to Rs.1,04,000/-. The 1st defendant failed to pay the said amount against delivery and inspite of repeated requests and demand and also issuance of legal notice dated 27.12.2011, calling upon defendants to pay the said sum due, defendants failed and neglected to pay the same. As on the date of suit defendants are due to the plaintiff the sum of Rs.1,65,160/-. The cause of action for the suit arose on 6.1.2009 and also on subsequent dates. Hence this suit.4 O.S.No. 25055 / 2012
3) After registration of this suit, suit summons were issued to the defendants. In view of memo filed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, the suit against defendant No.2 was dismissed vide orders dated 20.3.2014. In-
response to the summons, the 1st defendant appeared before this court through his counsel and filed written-statement admitting that defendant No.1 vide purchase order dated 3.3.2008 placed orders with the plaintiff Co., for supply of hardware and firmware per point 8 Nos. ENVIRO ALERT Remote real time monitoring of temperature/ pressure/ humidity/ parameter on WEB based solutions for Rs.1,04,000/- inclusive of tax and also admitted that the defendant No.1 enquired the status of purchase order by its e-mail dated 31.12.2008 and denied all the material averments made in the plaint and contended that the plaintiff has not produced service report for having supplied materials / equipment. The plaintiff has to install and set in to motion the said unit and submit the service report for satisfactory working. The transaction is pertaining to the then Neureol Technologies Pvt., Ltd., which became present 5 O.S.No. 25055 / 2012 plaintiff company. The defendant was always ready and willing to make payment subject to production of service report. The plaintiff failed to furnish service report inspite of repeated request and failed to comply with the terms of contract. The claim of the plaintiff is against the trade norms. At no point of time the defendant denied payments, but insisted the service report to get confirmation that the materials supplied are installed at the customers place. There was no cause of action for the suit. For all these reasons, the 1st defendant prays to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff.
4) On the basis of the above Pleadings, following Issues have been framed:-
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that as per purchase order No. 4258 dt: 3.3.2008 of defendant No.1 the plaintiff vide credit invoice No. NTPL 013/08-09 dated 6.1.2009 supplied and delivered hardware and firmware package per point of 8 numbers of ENVIRO ALERT remote real time monitoring of 6 O.S.No. 25055 / 2012 temperature / pressure / humidity/ parameters on web bases solution to the defendant No.1 worth Rs.1,04,000/- as contended in the plaint?
(2) Whether plaintiff proves that it is entitled to recover suit claim amount of Rs.1,65,160/- from the defendant with interest?
(3) What order or decree?
5) The plaintiff Co., in order to prove its case got filed affidavit evidence of its Director and Authorised Representative Mr. M.S. Sivasankaran. The same was taken as PW1 and got marked documents Ex.P1 to 12 and closed his side. On the other hand, on behalf of the 1st defendant, Mr. Justin Sebastin, Asst. Manager of the 1st defendant has filed affidavit by way of examination-in-chief. Same was taken as DW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 and closed side of 1st defendant.
7 O.S.No. 25055 / 2012
6) I have heard the arguments of both the sides. The learned counsel for 1st defendant also filed written arguments.
7) My findings to the above Issues are as follows:
Issue No.1) ........ In the affirmative Issue No.2) ........ In the affirmative Issue No.3) ........ As per the final orders, for the following:
REASONS
8) Issue Nos. 1 & 2 :- Since these issues are inter linked with each other they are taken up together for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts.
9) PW1 in his affidavit evidence has reiterated and re-affirmed the contents of the plaint averments and got marked documents at Ex.P1 to P12. In the cross examination by the learned counsel for the defendant he has stated that as per purchase order the plaintiff has to supply goods. He denied the suggestion that apart from supplying the goods the plaintiff company used to take responsibility of installation. They have submitted report at the personal 8 O.S.No. 25055 / 2012 request of the defendant and not as per contract. At the request of defendant they have installed 8 Nos. of remote monitoring system in the year 2009 and submitted service report for such installation. As per invoice dated 6.1.2009 he has completed supply of goods. Immediately on delivery of goods the defendant ought to have paid the money. From the date of delivery itself they were asking defendants to make payment, but they did not pay the money. He denied the suggestion that there was incomplete installation by the plaintiff company and the plaintiff did not supply complete service report. He further denied the suggestion that the equipments which were supplied to the defendant company were malfunctioning, which was brought to the notice of the plaintiff company. The witness volunteers that it is the reason that has been taken by the defendant company to avoid payments. He denied the suggestion that the plaintiff company has not taken any steps to cure the defects in malfunctioning of the equipments. He denied the suggestion that, to make illegal gain the plaintiff company 9 O.S.No. 25055 / 2012 has claimed interest at 18%. He further denied the suggestion that the plaintiff company is making false claim.
10) DW1 defendant in his affidavit evidence has reiterated and reaffirmed the contents of the written statement and got marked Ex.D1. But, Dw-1 was not tendered for cross examination inspite of sufficient opportunity were given. In view of DW1 was not tendered for cross examination, the affidavit evidence of DW1 has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law.
11) It is the case of the plaintiff that it is a registered company under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Bengaluru and they are manufacturers and dealers of remote monitoring sensors / devices for various applications carrying on their business at Bengaluru.
The defendant No.1 is a registered company and it was earlier known as MNE Technologies Pvt., Ltd., and recently it has been renamed as TBS India Telematic and Biomedical Services Pvt.Ltd. Defendant No.1 being one of the customers of the plaintiff used to purchase goods on credit 10 O.S.No. 25055 / 2012 basis. Accordingly, on 3.3.2008 defendant No.1 placed orders vide purchase order No.4258 through e-mail for supply of hardware and firmware package per point of 8 Nos. of ENVIRO ALERT Remote Real Time Monitoring of Temperature / Pressure / Humidity / Parameters on WEB based solution for Rs.1,04,000/-. Accordingly, the plaintiff vide Credit Invoice No.NTPL.013/08-09, dated 6.1.2009 delivered the said hardware to defendant No.1 on credit basis for Rs.1,04,000/-. The terms of purchase orders being payment against delivery. But the defendant failed to pay the amount against delivery. Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay an amount of 1,04,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. Totally, the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,65,160/- to the plaintiff.
12) On the other hand defendant No.1 by filing written statement admitted that vide purchase order dated 3.3.2008 defendant No.1 placed orders with the plaintiff company for supply of 8 Nos. of ENVIRO ALERT Remote Real Time Monitoring of Temperature / Pressure / Humidity 11 O.S.No. 25055 / 2012 / Parameters on WEB based solution for Rs.1,04,000/- and further contended that the company of the plaintiff has not produced service reports for having supplied materials / equipments. As per the terms, the plaintiff has to install and set into motion the said instrument and submit service report for satisfactory working. But, the plaintiffs have not submitted service report. Therefore, there is no obligation on the part of defendant No.1 to make payment of Rs.1,04,000/-. From the contention taken in the written statement of defendant No.1 it is clear that defendant No.1 has not disputed the orders placed by it with the plaintiff on 3.3.2008 vide purchase order No.4258 for supply of hardware and firmware package per point of 8 Nos. ENVIRO ALERT Remote Real Time Monitoring of Temperature / Pressure / Humidity / Parameters on WEB based solution for Rs.1,04,000/-. The plaintiff got marked Ex.P3 purchase order No.4258 dated 3.3.2008 placed by defendant No.1 for supply of the said device. From Ex.P3 it is crystal clear that defendant No.1 placed purchase orders dated 3.3.2008, vide No.4258 for supply of 8 Nos. of 12 O.S.No. 25055 / 2012 ENVIRO ALERT Remote Real Time Monitoring of Temperature / Pressure / Humidity / Parameters on WEB based solution for Rs.1,04,000/-. Therefore, the plaintiff delivered the said device to the 1st defendant. Ex.P4 is the tax invoice which clearly goes to show that the plaintiff has supplied Hardware and Firmware to the 1st defendant. Ex.P5 is the letter of correspondence made by the plaintiff to the defendant No.1 stating that they had supplied the said device to defendant No.1. Ex.P6 is the email correspondence made by defendant No.1 with the plaintiff. So, from the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff and in view of admission by defendant No.1 that it has placed purchase order No.4258 dated 3.3.2008 to the plaintiff company for supply of ENVIRO ALERT Remote Real Time Monitoring of Temperature / Pressure / Humidity / Parameters on WEB based solution for Rs.1,04,000/- and accordingly the plaintiff has supplied the said device on credit basis for Rs.1,04,000/-, but defendant No.1 did not make payment of Rs.1,04,000/- to the plaintiff for having taken delivery of the said device. Hence, the plaintiff has proved that as per 13 O.S.No. 25055 / 2012 purchase order No.4258 dated 3.3.2008 of defendant No.1 the plaintiff Co., vide credit Invoice No.NTPL.013/08-09 dated 6.1.2009 for Rs.1,04,000/- has supplied and delivered 8 Nos. of Hardware and Firmware package ENVIRO ALERT Remote Real Time Monitoring of Temperature / Pressure / Humidity / Parameters on WEB based solution to the 1st defendant on credit basis. But the 1st defendant failed to pay the said amount to the plaintiff. Hence, as on the date of the suit, 1st defendant was due in a sum of Rs.1,04,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from 6.1.2009, till the date of filing the suit at Rs.56,160/-, notice charges at Rs.5,000/- totally Rs.1,65,160/-. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim amount of Rs. 1,65,160/- from the defendants.
13) The plaintiff has prayed for future interest at 18% p.a., as per trade, usage and customs since the transaction in between the plaintiff and the defendant took place for commercial purpose. The interest claimed by the plaintiff at 18% p.a., which is on higher side. By looking to the suit claim amount, if the future interest at 18% p.a. is 14 O.S.No. 25055 / 2012 granted it would overburden defendants. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the plaintiff is entitled to future interest only at 12% p.a. and not at 18% p.a. Hence, I answer issue No.1 and 2 in the affirmative.
14) ISSUE NO.3 :- In-view of the reasons stated on Issue Nos.1 and 2, above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed with costs.
2) The 1st defendant is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,65,160/- [Rupees one lakh sixty five thousand one hundred and sixty only] to the plaintiff with interest at 12% p.a., from the date of suit, till its realization.
3) Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcript thereof corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of July, 2018).
(B.NARAYANAPPA) XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE MAYOHALL UNIT; BANGALORE.
15 O.S.No. 25055 / 2012ANNEXURES:-
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
PW1 Mr. M.S. Sivashankaran LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
Ex.P1 Resolution
Ex.P2 & 3 Two notices sent by email
Ex.P4 Tax invoice
Ex.P5 & 6 email letters
Ex.P7 Legal notice
Ex.P8 & 9 Two postal receipts
Ex.P10 & 11 Postal Acknowledgement
Ex.P12 certificate of posting
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE
DEFENDANT/S:
DW1 Mr. Justin Sebastin
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE
DEFENDANT/S:
Ex.D1 Authorization letter
(B.NARAYANAPPA)
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE MAYOHALL UNIT; BANGALORE.16 O.S.No. 25055 / 2012
18.7.2018 Plf: by Sri D.O.K. Judgment pronounced in the open court D No.1 :by Sri NH (Vide separate detailed Judgment) D 2 deleted Judgment The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed with costs.
2) The 1st defendant is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,65,160/- [Rupees one lakh sixty five thousand one hundred and sixty only] to the plaintiff with interest at 12% p.a., from the date of suit, till its realization.
3) Draw decree accordingly.
(B.NARAYANAPPA)
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE MAYOHALL UNIT; BANGALOR