Delhi District Court
Cpl Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd vs M/S. J J International Pvt. Ltd on 26 October, 2013
In the Court of Civil Judge04 (South),
Saket Court Complex, New Delhi
Presided By : Ms. Ritu Singh
Suit No. 151/2011
Unique Case ID no. 02406C0302542010
In the matter of :
1. CPL Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd.
having its office at 130/2,
Masjid Moth (behind NDSE Part II)
New Delhi110049.
2. M/s. Poddar Enterprises
a unit of CPL Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd.
130/2, Masjid Moth (behind NDSE Part II)
New Delhi110049. ...............Plaintiff
Versus
1. M/s. J J International Pvt. Ltd.
74A, Sainik Farms, New Delhi
2. Hotel Ramada Plaza,
through its Managing Director/Secretary,
Ashoka Road, New Delhi .........Defendants
Date of Institution : 26.02.2010
Date of Reserving of Judgment : 26.10.2013
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 26.10.2013
J U D G M E N T
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff no.1 i.e. CPL Trading Suit No. 151/2011 1/20 pages Company Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its office at 130/2, Masjid Moth (Behind NDSE Part II), New Delhi110049 and plaintiff no.2 is a unit of CPL Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. and plaintiff no.2 is owned and possessed by plaintiff no.1. Plaintiff filed this suit through Sh. Inder Mohan Poddar, Managing Director, Principal Officer / Constituted Attorney to sign, verify and institute the present suit on behalf of plaintiff, who was duly authorised vide resolution dated 12.12.2009 passed by the plaintiff no.1, against both the defendants seeking recovery of Rs. 1,27,258/ ( Rupees One Lakh Twenty Seven Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Eight Only ) along with pendentelite and future interest @ 18 % per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the realisation along with cost of the suit.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant no. 1 had been dealing with the plaintiffs and defendant no.2 is a Hotel which had received the various goods from the plaintiffs which were in fact delivered to defendant no. 2 at the instructions and instance of defendant no.1. It is further averred in the plaint that plaintiffs are one of the distributors of M/s. Nestle India Ltd. , M/s. Dabur Foods Ltd. and as per the orders placed by defendant no.1 with the plaintiff from time to time at New Delhi, the plaintiffs used to supply the goods and also used to raise bills/tax invoices against defendant no.1 for the said supply at New Delhi Suit No. 151/2011 2/20 pages and a regular statement of account also used to be maintained by the plaintiffs wherein payment made by defendant no.1 were used to be shown on the credit side and the goos so delivered to it used to be shown on the debit side therein and that as instructed by defendant no.1, the said goods were delivered to defendant no.2 and as such, defendant no.2 is jointly and severally bound and liable to pay the outstanding dues of the plaintiff along with defendant no.1. 1. It is further averred in the plaint that defendant no.2 also used to acknowledge the receipt of the said goods by putting the rubber seal and also signing on the office copy of the said tax invoice generated by the plaintiffs and that as per the recorded duly maintained by the plaintiff, the defendants have not made the payment of the following bills total amounting to Rs.98,958/.
Bill No. Bill date Bill Amount (in Rs.)
NT753 07.10.2008 6561.00
DB1632 17.10.2008 46076.00
DB1663 20.10.2008 3044.00
NT979 25.11.2008 2592.00
NT987 28.11.2008 9439.00
DB1973 28.11.2008 17518.00
NT1034 10.12.2008 2960.00
NT1106 30.12.2008 2592.00
DB2121 20.12.2008 1380.00
Suit No. 151/2011 3/20 pages
NT1134 06.01.2009 6796.00
Total Rs. 98958.00
3. It is further averred in the plaint that the plaintiffs repeatedly requested the defendants for the payment of the said bills/invoices and they have been repeatedly assuring the plaintiffs for making the payment but have been avoiding the same on one pretext or the other.
4. It is further averred in the plaint that vide letter dt. 23.4.2009 which was personally delivered to defendant no.2 and received and acknowledged by it on the same day, called upon the defendants to pay to the plaintiffs the said outstanding payment of Rs.98,958/ along with interest thereon but defendants have failed to pay the same. It is further averred in the plaint that over and above the said outstanding amount, the defendants are also liable to pay interest to the plaintiffs @21% per annum as per the rate prevailing in the market, trade usage and custom along with notice charges of Rs.11000/ which sum or any part thereof, the defendants have neither paid nor tendered to the plaintiffs despite their requests and demands and thatthe defendants are liable to pay interest @Rs.21% p.a. but the plaintiffs have restricted their claim @18% p.a.
5. It is further averred in the plaint that plaintiffs further demanded their outstanding dues from the defendants in terms of their legal notice dated Suit No. 151/2011 4/20 pages 6.10.2009 sent under Registered AD/UPC Post despatched on 7.10.09 but despite the service of the said notice, neither payment was made nor has any reply been preferred by the defendants and that now a total sum of Rs. 1,27,958/ is due and payable by the defendants to the plaintiff as on the date of filing of the suit.
6. Defendant no.1 was served and contested the present suit by way of filing WS wherein defendant no.1 has taken preliminary objection that suit of plaintiffs is nothing but gross misuse of process and that the answering defendant is not liable to pay the suit amount as a matter of fact the goods were supplied to the defendant no.2 and same were consumed by the defendant no.2, hence the defendant no.2 is liable to pay the suit amount and no cause of action has ever arisen in favour of plaintiffs. It is further stated in WS of defendant no.2 that the defendant no.1 is the intermediary agent of the defendant no.2 and not responsible for any debt and liability of the defendant no.2 and that the said goods were consumed by the defendant no.2 and hence the defendant no.2 is solely liable to pay the liability against the plaintiffs and further that the goods under dispute were received and acknowledged by the defendant no.2.
7. Defendant no.2 was served and contested the present suit by way of filing WS wherein defendant no.2 has taken preliminary objection that no purchase order placed on record and plaintiffs have suppressed the Suit No. 151/2011 5/20 pages material facts and plaintiffs in connivance with old management are raising false and frivolous claims and that present suit is gross about of process of law by plaintiff as the plaintiff has claimed the alleged dues after more than two years. It is further stated in the WS of defendant no.2 that Caution Notices were given in leading newspapers by new management that anyone dealing with Mrs. R P Mittal, his nominees representatives/successors etc. in any manner will be doing so at his/their own risk, cost and consequences and if any agreement so entered same shall not be binding on defendant client HILLCREST REALITY SDN. BHD. Defendant no.2 has denied that plaintiffs have supplied their goods to the answering defendant no.2 on the instructions and instance of defendant no.2 and that the defendant no.2 was not aware as to how and for what purpose the alleged goods were ordered and how the alleged payments were made. It is further stated in the WS of defendant no.2 that no document or proof in writing has been placed on record prior to notice dated 06.10.2009 to show that the plaintiff was following the erstwhile old management and defendant no.2 for the alleged over dues and outstanding and that the defendant no.2 is not aware about any goods being supplied or any payments were refused in the absence of any purchase order on record and being come into management only after 14.02.2009 and it is specifically denied that no letter dated 23.04.2009 Suit No. 151/2011 6/20 pages was served on the defendant no.2 and also that defendant no.2 has never admitted any liability towards the alleged due of the plaintiffs.
8. Plaintiff has filed replications to the WS of the defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 separately wherein plaintiff has reiterated his stand taken in the plaint.
9. On the basis of pleadings made on behalf of parties, following issues were framed:
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of Rs.
1,27,958/.? OPP
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to pendente lite and future interest @ 18 % per annum on the decreetal amount? OPP
3. Whether defendant no. 1 was the intermediary agent of defendant no.2 ? If so, its effect. OPD1
4. Relief.
10. Thereafter plaintiff evidence was led. Plaintiff examined Sh. Mohan Poddar s/o Lt. Sh. Pyare Lal Poddar, Managing Director, Principal Officer of M/s. CPL Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., 130/2, Masjid Moth, New Delhi49 as PW1 who tender his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/X along with following documents:
1. Ex.PW1/1 certified copy of certificate of incorporation of plaintiff company.
Suit No. 151/2011 7/20 pages
2. Ex.PW1/2 original copy of extracts of Board Meetings
3. Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/12 original copy of the tax invoices /bills of plaintiff addressed to def.no.1.
4. Ex.PW1/13 original letter along with acknowledgment
5. Ex.PW1/14 original legal notice
6. Ex.PW1/15 original postal receipt
7. Ex.PW1/16 original UPC
11. PW1 was cross exmained by Ld. Counsel for the defendant no.1 and by Ld. Counsel for the defendant no.2.
12. Plaintiff evidence was closed vide separate statement of Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff on 3.7.12.
13. Thereafter, defendant evidence was led. Defendant no.1 examined Sh. Girish Kumar Makhija S/o Late Sh. P.D. Makhija R/o 19, Ashok Road, New Delhi as DW1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is EX.DW2/X alongwith the following documents:
1. EX.DW2/1 (Copy of Board Resolution dated 19.01.2009) OSR
2. EX.DW2/2 (Copy of the Order dated 14.01.2009 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi) OSR
3. EX.DW2/3 (Copy of the Order dated 20.07.2009 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India) - OSR
4. EX.DW2/4 (Colly.) Public notices - OSR Suit No. 151/2011 8/20 pages
14. DW1 was cross examined by Ld. counsel for the plaintiff.
15. Evidence of defendant no.2 was closed on 31.05.2013.
16. Defendant has further examined Ms. Gurpreet Kaur d/o Sh. Khushal Singh r/o C71, Ground Floor, Fateh Nagar, Near Tilak Nagar Delhi110058 as DW2 who has tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW2/X along with following documents:
1. Ex.DW2/1 original board of resolution dt. 6.11.2012
17. DW 2 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
18. Evidence of defendant no.1 was closed vide statement of AR of defendant no.1 on 10.09.2013.
19. Thereafter, final arguments were heard on behalf of both the parties.
20. Issue wise findings are as under:
ISSUE No.1 Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of Rs. 1,27,958/.? OPP
21. Onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff. Plaintiffs have averred in their plaint that as per the orders placed by defendant no.1 with the plaintiffs, plaintiffs used to supply goods and raised bills/tax invoices against defendant no.1. Plaintiffs have averred in their plaint that payments were made by defendant no.1 which was reflected in regular statement of account maintained by the plaintiffs, however, at the Suit No. 151/2011 9/20 pages instructions of defendant no.1, said goods were delivered to defendant no.2. Plaintiffs have also averred that defendant no.2 also used to acknowledge the receipt of the goods by putting rubber seals and signing on the office copy of the tax invoice generated by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have stated that sum of Rs.98,958/ is due towards the bills raised by the plaintiffs and have claimed interest @18% per annum instead of 21% per annum which defendants are alleged to be liable to pay as interest over the outstanding amount, along with notice charges of Rs.11000/.
22. Plaintiffs have examined AR for the plaintiff as PW1 who has deposed in his affidavit Ex.PW1/X that as per the orders placed by defendant no.1 with the plaintiffs, plaintiffs used to supply goods and raised bills/tax invoices against defendant no.1 which was duly acknowledged by defendant no. 2 by putting their rubber seals and are exhibited as Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/12. Plaintiffs have averred in their plaint that payments were made by defendant no.1 which was reflected in regular statement of account maintained by the plaintiffs, however, at the instructions of defendant no.1, said goods were delivered to defendant no.2. PW1 has relied on letter dt. 23.4.2009 whereby the defendants were called upon to make payment of Rs.98,958/ along with interest thereupon and was received and acknowledged by defendant no.2 which is Ex.PW1/13. PW1 has relied on legal notice dt. 6.10.2009 whcih is Suit No. 151/2011 10/20 pages Ex.PW1/14 along with the UPC and postal receipts thereof which is Ex.PW1/15 and Ex.PW1/16.
23. Defendant no.1 has taken the plea in its WS that it is merely intermediary agent of the defendant no.2 for arranging supplier for defendant no.2 and supply of the goods was made by the plaintiff to defendant no.2 which was acknowledged by defendant no.2.
24. Defendant no.2 has raised objections in its WS as to why the plaintiff continued to supply the goods since 2008 to 6.1.2009 when the old management was not making any payment to them and raised their claim only after defendant no.2 took over the management and control of the company.
25. Defendant no.1 has examined Ms. Gurpreet Kaur as DW2 who has tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW2/X and has relied on Board Resolution dt. 6.11.2012 which is Ex.DW2/1. Ms. Gurpreet Kaur /witness for defendant no.1 has deposed in her affidavit that the plaintiff has supplied the goods to defendant no.2 which was consumed by defendant no.2 and defendant no.1 is intermediary agent of defendant no. 2 for arranging the supplier for defendant no.2.
26. Defendant no.2 has examined Sh. Girish Kumar Makhija as DW1 who has tendered his affidavit Ex.DW2/X who has stated in his affidavit that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant no.2 as Suit No. 151/2011 11/20 pages there is no purchase order or agreement between plaintiff and defendant no.2 which has been placed on record by plaintiff. Sh. Girish Kumar Makhija/witness on behalf of defendant no.2 has deposed on oath in his affidavit that defendant no.2 had assumed charge of the management and company only after order dt. 14.1.2009 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi which was affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide its order dt. 20.07.2009 and has relied on certified copy of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi which is Ex.DW2/2 and copy of order dated 20.7.2009 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India which is Ex.DW2/3. Sh. Girish Kumar Makhija/witness on behalf of defendant no.2 has deposed on oath in his affidavit that caution notices were issued in leading newspapers since 2006 to give notice to general public not to deal with Mr. R P Mittal and has relied on copy thereof Ex.DW2/4 (colly.).
27. Plaintiff has relied on tax invoices which are Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/12 which has been drawn in the name of defendant no.1 and bears the seal along with receiving/acknowledgment on behalf of defendant no.2.
28. During the course of cross examination Sh. Girish Kumar Makhija/witness on behalf of defendant no.2 had admitted that Ex.PW1/12 bears the stamp of defendant no.2 but not the signature thereon. Moreover, Sh. Girish Kumar Makhija/witness on behalf of Suit No. 151/2011 12/20 pages defendant no.2 has filed board resolution in his favour which is Ex.DW2/1 and has been issued in his favour by the Board of Directors of Hotel Queen Road Pvt. Ltd. at 19, Ashoka Road, New Delhi110001. Sh. Girish Kumar Makhija/witness on behalf of defendant no.2 has further relied on copy of caution notice Ex.DW2/4 (colly.) wherein it is stated that Hotel Queen Road Pvt. Ltd. was also being projected as Ramada Plaza/defendant no.2 which is situated at the same address as Hotel Queen Road Pvt. Ltd. at 19, Ashoka Road, New Delhi110001. Sh. Girish Kumar Makhija/witness on behalf of defendant no.2 has admitted during the course of his cross examination that "Def.no.1 was intermediary and used to place orders for def.no.2."
29. Ms. Gurpreet Kaur /witness for defendant no.1 has stated during the course of her cross examination that "It is correct that bills were drawn in the name of def.no.1."
30. Ms. Gurpreet Kaur /witness for defendant no.1 has further stated during the course of her cross examination that defendant no.1 had only arranged meetings between plaintiff and defendant no.2 and was not placing any orders of supply of goods.
31. It is admitted by both the parties that there is no written agreement between the plaintiff and defendant no.1 and 2 for supply of goods. Further, both the defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 have admitted that Suit No. 151/2011 13/20 pages defendant no.1 was an intermediary agent for defendant no.2. Further, Sh. Girish Kumar Makhija/witness on behalf of defendant no. 2 has also admitted during the course of his cross examination that defendant no.1 acting as an intermediary agent for defendant no.2 used to place orders on behalf of defendant no.2.
32. Thus, it appears from the oral and documentary testimony of the parties that defendant no.1 was acting as agent on behalf of defendant no.2.
33. According to Section 226 and 230 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 agent is not liable for the acts done by him within the scope of his authority under contract of agency on behalf of the principal when the name of the principal has been disclosed to the third party.
34. Liability of defendant no.2 who admittedly is the principal for defendant no.1 has to be determined against the objections taken by the defendant no.2 that defendant no.2 assumed the charge of the management and control of the company after order dt. 14.1.2009 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi which is Ex.DW2/2. As observed herein above, Sh. Girish Kumar Makhija/witness on behalf of defendant no.2 has stated in his affidavit that he is the authorised representative for defendant no.2 company and has filed his board resolution dt. 19.1.2009 which has been issued by Hotel Queen Road Pvt. Ltd. He has further relied on caution notice Ex.DW2/4 (colly.) wherein it has been stated that Hotel Queen Suit No. 151/2011 14/20 pages Road Pvt. Ltd. was previously known as Hotel Indraprastha as well as being projected as Hotel Ramada Plaza.
35. Thus, from the board resolution dt. 19.1.2009 in favour of Sh. Girish Kumar Makhija/witness on behalf of defendant no.2 as well as affidavit of Sh. Girish Kumar Makhija/witness on behalf of defendant no.2, it is beyond doubt that defendant no.2 is a company.
36. It is a settled principal of corporate law that company is a legal entitity separate from its members or its management and has perpetual succession thereby implying that its members or management may change but the company continues to exist from the date of its incorporation as a company till its dissolution under law. Thus, even if the management of the company has change hands as stated by the Sh. Girish Makhi /witness of def.no.2 after order dt. 14.1.2009 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi which is Ex.DW2/2, still the company namely Hotel Queen Road Pvt. Ltd. /Hotel Ramada Plaza/defendant no.2 had continued to be in existence and is accordingly liable for the transactions carried out by the company, even if the stated transaction was carried out with previous management.
37. Moreover, the tax invoices which are Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/12 bears the seal along with receiving/acknowledgment on behalf of defendant no.2, thus, implying that the goods stated therein have been received by Suit No. 151/2011 15/20 pages defendant no.2. Even though, the tax invoice Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/12 have been generated in the name of def.no.1 but def.no.2 has admitted that def.no.1 is its agent and as such def.no.1 is vicariously liable as the principal for the acts of its agent /def.no.1.
38. The tax invoices Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/12 have been endorced by stamps of def.no.2 and signed by representative of def.no.2. Def. no.2 has not led any documentary evidence to show that it has not received goods stated therein and thus oral allegations of def.no.2 have remained unproved.
39. Thus, this issue is decided in favour of plaintiffs and against defendants. ISSUE No. 2
whether plaintiff is entitled to pendente lite and future interest @ 18 % per annum on the decreetal amount?
OPP
40. Onus to prove this issue was upon plaintiff. Plaintiff has prayed for pendente lite and future interest @ 18 % per annum on the decreetal amount. PW 1 has deposed in his affidavit Ex.PW1/X that defendants are liable to pay interest to the plaintiff @21% per annum, as per the rates prevailing in the market but plaintiffs have restricted their claim @18% per annum.
41. Defendant no.1 has denied that he is liable to pay interest @21% per Suit No. 151/2011 16/20 pages annum. Ms. Gurpreet Kaur/witness for defendant no.1 has not taken any objection against the amount or the interest claimed by the plaintiff in her affidavit in evidence. Sh. Girish Kumar Makhija/witness on behalf of defendant no.2 has deposed on oath in his affidavit that defendant no.2 has no claim or liability towards the alleged dues of the plaintiff.
42. Plaintiff has relied upon invoice/bills which are Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/12 which does not bear any stipulation regarding rate of interest payable in case of default. Plaintiff has relied on letter dt. 23.4.2009 Ex.PW1/13 wherein plaintiff has sought payment of the amount due from the defendant, where again there is no mention of the rate of interest payable in case of default. Plaintiff has further relied on copy of legal demand notice dt. 6.10.2009 wherein plaintiff has demanded interest @21% per annum stating that it is the rate prevailing in the market trade usage and custom. However, plaintiff has not led any evidence to prove that he is entitled to interest @18% per annum on the principal sum, alleged to be due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. There is no written or oral agreement between the parties as to the rate of interest payable on the principal amount or in case of default of the payment by the defendant nor has plaintiff led any affirmative evidence to establish that interest @18% per annum is the rate prevailing in the market trade usage and custom. Therefore, no ground is made out to grant of pendente lite Suit No. 151/2011 17/20 pages and future interest @ 18 % per annum on the decreetal amount.
43. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of defendant and against the plaintiff.
ISSUE No. 3
Whether defendant no. 1 was the intermediary agent of defendant no.2 ? If so, its effect. OPD1
44. Onus to prove this issue was upon defendant no.1. Def. no.1 has raised the objection in his WS that it is intermediary agent for defendant no.2 for placing orders on behalf of defendant no.2. Ms. Gurpreet Kaur/witness for defendant no.1 has deposed in her affidavit Ex.DW2/X that def.no.1 is intermediary agent for defendant no.2 for placing orders on behalf of defendant no.2, though, no written agreement was executed between defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 for this.
45. Sh. Girish Kumar Makhija/witness on behalf of defendant no.2 has admitted during the course of his cross examination that defendant no.1 is intermediary agent for defendant no.2 and used to place orders for defendant no.2.
46. PW1 has deposed in his affidavit Ex.PW1/X that the orders were placed at the instance of defendant no.1 and invoices were generated against defendant no.1, though, the goods were delivered to defendant no.2 at the instructions of defendant no.1. PW1 has relied on invoices/bills Suit No. 151/2011 18/20 pages Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/12. Perusal of invoices/bills Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/12 clearly shows that bills were generated in the name of defendant no.1 and bears the receiving /acknowledgment of goods stated therein on behalf of defendant no.2.
47. Thus, from the unequivocal admission of the witness Sh. Girish Kumar Makhija/witness on behalf of defendant no.2 and invoices/bills Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/12, it is beyond any doubt that defendant no.1 used to place orders on behalf of defendant no.2 as agent of defendant no.2 and the goods were received by defendant no.2, in his capacity as the principal of defendant no.1.
48. According to Section 226 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 "Enforcement and consequences of agent's contracts - Contracts entered into through an agent, and obligations arising from acts done by an agent, may be enforced in the same manner and will have the same legal consequences as if the contracts had been entered into the acts done by the principal in person."
49. According to Section 230 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 "Agent cannot personally enforce, nor be bound by, contracts on behalf of principal - In the absence of any contract to that effect, an agent cannot personally enforce contracts entered into by him on behalf of his principal, nor is he personally bound by them."
50. In view of clear statutory mandate under Section 226 and Section 230 of Suit No. 151/2011 19/20 pages the Indian Contract Act, 1872, agent cannot be held liable for the acts done on behalf of the principal when the acts are within the scope of its agency and the third party has been given notice that agent is acting on behalf of its principal. Consequently, defendant no.1 acting as an agent of defendant no.2 and within scopes of its authority cannot be held liable for indemnifying third party for the acts done by it on behalf of its principal, defendant no.2.
ISSUE No. 4
Relief.
51. In view of findings reached at in Issue no.1,2 and 3, suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for recovery of Rs. 1,27,958/ against defendant no.2 only along with pendentelite interest @ 9 % per annum and future interest @ 6 % per annum till realization of decree.
52. No orders as to cost.
53. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
54. File be consigned to records.
Announced in the open Court (Ritu Singh)
Dated 26.10.2013 Civil Judge04/South District
New Delhi
Suit No. 151/2011 20/20 pages