Bangalore District Court
M/S Projekt Elits India Pvt. Ltd., Rep. ... vs M/S Woodmills Pvt. Ltd., Rep. By Its ... on 28 November, 2024
KABC0A0021262024
IN THE COURT OF XIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU (CCH-22)
Present:
Sri S. Gopalappa, B.A.L., LL.B.,
XIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU.
OS No.25587/2024
Dated this 28th day of November, 2024
Plaintiff:- M/s ProjektElits India Pvt., Ltd.,
A Company registered under the Companies
Act 2013, Having its Office at G-12,
Richmond Towers, Richmond Road,
Bengaluru-25, Represented by its
Director Mr. Krishna Poddar.
(Rep. By - Sri Sri M.D. Raghunath, Advocate)
V/S
Defendants:- 1) M/s Woodmills Pvt., Ltd.,
A Company registered under the Companies
Act, Having its Office at #60,
1st Floor, 1st Main, Silver Cloud Layout,
Horamavu, Opposite to Sunrise School,
Bengaluru-43. Represented by its
Managing Director,
Mr. Dadam Sudhakar Reddy.
2) Mr. Dadam Sudhakar Reddy,
Having its Office at #60, 1st Floor,
2 OS.No.25587/2024
Judgment
1st Main, Silver Cloud Layout,
Horamavu, Opposite to Sunrise School,
Bengaluru-43.
(.............Exparte.............)
Date of Institution of the suit 03/07/2024
Nature of the Suit Money Suit
Date of the commencement 24/10/2024
of recording of the Evidence.
Date on which the Judgment 28/11/2024
was pronounced.
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration -00- -04- -25-
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
MAYO HALL UNIT: BENGALURU.
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of sum of Rs.2,62,373 with interest at the rate of 1% per day from the date of suit till the realization and for cost and such other reliefs.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiff case are as follows:-
3 OS.No.25587/2024
Judgment That the plaintiff is a Company registered under the Companies Act and it is represented by the Director who is also its authorised signatory. The defendant No.1 is a Company registered under the Companies Act and the defendant No.1 is represented by defendant No.2 who is a Director and in-charge of the day to day activities concerning the defendant No.1. The plaintiff is in the business of trading plywood, laminates and other essential raw materials and allied products pertaining to the said aforementioned services all across the country. The plaintiff is well known in the business community for its prompt delivery and supply of unscrupulous commodities. The Defendant No.1 through Defendant No.2 were placing their purchase orders vide emails. The Defendant No.1 through Defendasnt No.2 had placed various purchase orders for the supplies of materials from the Plaintiff Company vide mail communications. The defendant No.1 through defendant No.2 had requested the Plaintiff Company to supply the materials on credit basis and persuaded the Plaintiff Company to maintain a running account of the defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 4 OS.No.25587/2024 Judgment through defendant No.2 was intermittently making payments for all the orders placed to the Plaintiff Company. The intermittent payments clearly showcases that the defendants have acknowledged and acceded to the legal outstanding debts to be paid to the plaintiffs. The defendants were due of Rs.1,87,394/- excluding interest charges and the interest is charged at 18% per annum as per the terms and conditions mentioned by the Plaintiff Company which was explicitly agreed by the defendants on 26/05/2024. The final amount to be paid by the defendants is Rs 2,62,373/- inclusive of interest as admitted by defendants as on 03/12/2023. The plaintiff has got issued a legal notice dated 08/06/2023. The defendant has not taken any steps to clear the outstanding dues of Rs.2,62,373/- as on 26/05/2024. In view of the default on the part of the defendants in repayment of the due amount the defendasnts are liable to pay interest at 18% per annum together with future interest at 1% per day as per trade usage and custom from the date of the suit till realization of the suit and due amount of Rs.1,87,394/- together with interest at 5 OS.No.25587/2024 Judgment Rs.81,868/- as on 26/05/2024. In all the defendants are due a sum of Rs.2,62,373/-. Hence this suit.
3. Though the summons was served on the defendant, he did not appear before the Court. Hence, this Court placed him exparte.
4. In the exparte evidence, the authorized signatory of the plaintiff was examined as PW 1 and he got marked Ex. P1 to P11 and closed the plaintiff's side of evidence. Since defendant is ex parte, the oral and documentary evidence led by the plaintiff remained undisputed and there is also no rebuttal evidence.
5. I have heard the arguments of the Learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the records.
6. Since the defendant is ex parte, issues are not framed and therefore, at this stage the following points are framed for consideration;
6 OS.No.25587/2024
Judgment
1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit claim of Rs.2,62,373/- along with interest, from the defendants?
2) What order or decree?
7. My answer to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1) In the Affirmative, Point No.2) As per final Order, for the following:
REASONS
8. Point No.1 :- The authorized signatory of plaintiff company is examined as PW.1 and he has reiterated the facts pleaded in the plaint. Ex.P1 is the Authorization Letter, under which the Plaintiff Company authorized PW.1 to prosecute the case. Ex.P2 is the copy of Registration Certificate of Plaintiff's Company. Ex.P3 & 4 are the Ledger Extracts. Ex.P5 to 9 are the Invoices.
9. The Plaintiff's Company is doing business of trading plywood, laminates and other essential raw materials and allied products pertaining to the aforementioned services 7 OS.No.25587/2024 Judgment all across the Country. The defendant placed various purchase orders to supply the materials on credit basis and persuaded the plaintiff to maintain a running account. According to the invoices Ex.P5 to 9 the Plaintiff Company supplied materials to the defendant No.1 Company and maintained the accounts.
10. According to the ledger extracts and invoices the defendants are due in a sum of Rs.2,62,373/- including the interest charges. Inspite of issuance of legal notice the defendants have not repaid the amount due to the Plaintiff Company. Inspite of service of summons the defendants not appeared before the Court. This attitude of the defendants strengthens the contention of the plaintiff. Hence, I find no reasons to disbelieve the contention of the plaintiff. The further interest claimed by the plaintiff at the rate of 1% per day is exorbitant. The plaintiff is entitle for further interest at the rate of 18% p.a. Therefore, I hold that the Plaintiff Company is entitled for the relief sought for in the plaint. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the Affirmative.
8 OS.No.25587/2024
Judgment
11. Point No.2:- For the forgoing reasons assigned on point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is decreed, with cost.
It is held that the Plaintiff Company is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.2,62,373/- from the Defendant Company along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from date of suit till date of realization.
Office to draw decree accordingly.
[Dictated to the Stenographer, after his transcription, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 28th day of November, 2024].
(S. Gopalappa) XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT; BANGALORE.
-:ANNEXURE:-
WITNESS EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFFS: P.W.1 : Krishna Poddar S/o Sasnjay Kumar Poddar 9 OS.No.25587/2024 Judgment DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFFS:
Ex.P1 : Authorization Letter
Ex.P2 : Registration Certificate
Ex.P3&4 : Ledger Extracts
Ex.P5to9 : Invoices (5 Nos)
Ex.P10 : Office copy of Legal Notice
Ex.P10(a) & : Postal Receipts
(b)
[[
Ex.P11 : Unserved RPAD cover
Ex.P11(a) : Notice
WITNESS EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANTs:
-Nil-
DOCUMENT MARKED FOR DEFENDANTs:
-Nil-
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE MAYOHALL UNIT; BANGALORE.