Delhi District Court
Hellmann Worldwide Logistics India ... vs Mr. Aditya Chordia on 27 November, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. LAL SINGH,
ADJ-03(SOUTH WEST),DWARKA COURT COMPLEX,NEW DELHI
Suit No.321/11/13
Hellmann Worldwide Logistics India Private Limited,
A Company registered under Companies Act, 1956,
Having its registered office at
Plot No. 8, Pocket-2, Rangpuri Extn.,
Block-A, N.H.-8,
New Delhi-110037,
Through it's Authorized Representatives
Sh. Rajinder Kalra. ............Plaintiff.
Versus
Mr. Aditya Chordia,
Proprietor "Rajul Exports"
At:
Sundaram, B-28, Nu-Lite Colony,
Rajasthan-302029. ..........Defendant.
Date of Institution of Suit : 19.03.2011
Date on which Judgment was reserved : 11.11.2014
Date on which judgment passed : 27.11.2014
Judgment:
1.The plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendant for recovery in the sum of Rs. 6,06,623.76 (Rupees six lacs six thousand six hundred twenty three and seventy six paisa only) along with interest.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff is a private Limited company incorporated under the provisions of companies Act, 1956. The defendant, as per representations made by him to the plaintiff company, is engaged in the business of export of natural stones, under the name and style of his proprietorship concern "Rajul Exports" as sole Suit No. 321/11/13 M/s Hellmann Worldwide Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Aditya Chordia Proprietor, "Rajul Exports".
2proprietor thereof and exports the said goods to various foreign countries. It is averred by the plaintiff that the defendant, from time to time, availed the services of the plaintiff company for freight forwarding of his various export consignments, through sea route, to their respective destinations, on credit basis. It is also averred by the plaintiff that on each of such occasion, the plaintiff company provided its services, as per instructions of the defendant and to his full satisfaction. Plaintiff also averred that in respect of each of such transaction, the plaintiff company raised upon the defendant its invoice in the name of "Rajul Export" i.e., the business name of the defendant. Plaintiff states that as per agreed understanding, the defendant was liable to pay each of such invoice with in a period of 30 days from the date of invoice, failing which an interest @ 18% per annum was chargeable on the invoice amount from the date of invoice till actual payment. As per plaintiff, the defendant however did not pay the following such invoices of the plaintiff company, as under.
SI. No. Invoice No. Invoice date Invoice Unpaid
Amount Amount
1. DESE013542 05.11.2009 51,624.28 21,628.51
2. DESE014661 07.01.2010 1,25,510.92 1,25,510.92
3. DESE014662 07.01.2010 42,940.38 42,940.38
4. DESE015266 11.02.2010 1,57,331.04 6116.04
5. DESE015278 11.02.2010 5,626.80 5,626.80
6. DESE016418 22.04.2010 79,045.68 79,045.68
7. DESE016439 23.04.2010 2,36,403.43 2,36,403.43
Total Unpaid Amount : Rs.5,17,271.76
Suit No. 321/11/13
M/s Hellmann Worldwide Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Aditya Chordia Proprietor, "Rajul Exports".
33. Plaintiff also claim that all the shipments against which aforesaid invoices were raised, were duly delivered at their respective destination to the complete satisfaction of the defendant and all the aforesaid invoices were duly delivered to the defendant for the payment thereof but the defendant did not pay the unpaid amount despite various requests, reminders, visits of the plaintiff in this regard.
4. Plaintiff averred that the plaintiff company, in ordinary and regular course of its business also opened/maintained a ledger account in the name of "Rajul Exports" the business name of the defendant, wherein the value of each of invoices was regularly debited and each payment/other adjustment were regularly credited. Plaintiff also averred that billing/documentation/accounting system in the plaintiff company is completely computerized and further the ledger accounts of the defendant were also maintained on computer. As per plaintiff, the defendant, towards partial discharge of his aforesaid liability of Rs. 5,17,271.76, issued and handed over to the plaintiff a cheque bearing no. 850236 dt. 10.03.2010 drawn on State Bank of India for Rs. 1,50,000/- in favour of the plaintiff company. However, on presentation of the aforesaid cheque for encashment, the same was returned by the banker of the defendant with the reason "Exceeds Arrangement" and consequently the banker of the plaintiff company returned the said cheque to the plaintiff company vide its cheuqe returning advice dt. 23.04.2010. Thereafter, the plaintiff company got issued to the defendant a legal notice dt. 29.04.2010 through speed post AD, U.P.C and Courier, at his address mentioned in the present plaint. However, Suit No. 321/11/13 M/s Hellmann Worldwide Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Aditya Chordia Proprietor, "Rajul Exports".
4despite receipts of the said notice, the defendant neither made payment of cheque amount nor even sent any reply. As per plaintiff, thereafter, plaintiff filed complaint against the defendant u/s 138 of NI Act, which is pending before the concerned Ld. MM Court, at Patiala House, New Delhi.
5. Plaintiff also issued another legal notice dt. 09.12.2010 to the defendant, whereby the plaintiff demanded the entire balance amount of Rs. 5,17,271.76 along with interest. Plaintiff states that, however, the defendant refused to accept the delivery of said notice sent through speed post and same was returned with the remarks refused. Though, the notice sent through courier was not returned.
6. As per plaintiff the cause of action arose on all the dates when the defendant approached the plaintiff company and plaintiff provided its services to the defendant. Cause of action further arosed when bills of ladings were issued and the shipment were reached their desired destination and also when the invoices in question were raised and the same became due. Plaintiff further states that cause of action also arose when the legal notices were sent to the defendant for payment and same is still subsisting. As per plaintiff this court is also having territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the present suit, as all the relevant transaction were handled from the regional office situated at Kapashera, New Delhi and the bills of lading and invoices were prepared and issued and accounts were maintained and invoices amounts were payable at the said office of the plaintiff company.
7. Plaintiff company also claims the interest of Rs. 89,352/- towards the interest calculated @ 18% per annum on the respective unpaid Suit No. 321/11/13 M/s Hellmann Worldwide Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Aditya Chordia Proprietor, "Rajul Exports".
5value of each of the said invoices from their respective dates till 28.02.2011. As such plaintiff filed the present suit against the defendant for recovery of Rs. 6,06,623.76 along with future and pendente lite interest.
8. The defendant has been duly served and filed the written statement. In its written statement defendant contended that this court has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit. The defendant in WS further contended that no cause of action has arised against the defendant as there is no liability stands against the defendant. It is also contended by the defendant that amount as mentioned in the invoices bearing no. DESE013542 dt. 05.11.2009, invoice bearing no. DESE015266 dt. 11.02.2010 and invoice bearing no. DESE15278 dt. 11.02.2010 are already made by the defendant and the amount claimed in the present suit is fictitious, concocted and baseless. The defendant in WS also contended that the disputed amount of Rs. 6,06,623.76, claimed by the plaintiff is fictitious as statement filed with the plaint at page number 37 shows the balance outstanding as on 24.02.2011 as Rs. 5,17,271.76. It is also contended by the defendant that, it is pertinent to mention that the plaintiff has filed a case under section 138 of NI Act for the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- against the cheque no. 850236 issued on 10.03.2010, though, for which the defendant has already made payment through RTGS on 29.04.2010. Defendant also contended that this act clearly shows the malafide intentions to squeeze out the money from the defendant. Defendant also took the objection in the WS that the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary and proper parties because as per the E-
Suit No. 321/11/13 M/s Hellmann Worldwide Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Aditya Chordia Proprietor, "Rajul Exports".
6mails between the plaintiff and defendant, it clearly shows that some payments out of total disputed amount is to be paid by V.S. international and hence, V.S international is necessary parties. Defendant denied the allegations of the plaintiff and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
9. The plaintiff has filed replication to the WS of the defendant and in replication denied the allegations of the plaintiff. The plaintiff in its replication reiterated the averments made in the plaint.
10. Thereafter, on 23.09.2011 on the basis of pleadings following issues were framed:-
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of suit amount from defendant as prayed for?.....OPP (2) Whether this court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit?......OPP (3) Whether the suit is bad for joinder/non-joinder of necessary parties?......OPD (4) Relief.
11. So as to prove its case the plaintiff has examined PW-1 Sh. Rajendera Kalra and PW-2 Subhash Sharma. PW-1, Sh. Rajendera Kalra has filed his evidence by way of affidavit EX.PW-1/A and exhibited the documents EX.PW-1/1 to EX.PW-1/23 and marked the documents as mark A to mark H in his evidence. PW-1 stated that aforesaid documents are true and correct and same may be read in evidence. PW-1 also relied upon the document EX.PW-1/24 which is certificate under section 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act. The cross examination of PW-1 was deferred at the request of counsel for the defendant on Suit No. 321/11/13 M/s Hellmann Worldwide Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Aditya Chordia Proprietor, "Rajul Exports".
723.012.2011 and thereafter, PW-1 did not appeared for cross examination as PW-1 left the employment of the plaintiff company. However, thereafter, the plaintiff has filed an application under order 16 rule 3 CPC stating that earlier AR of the company Sh. Rajendera Kalra has left the company and therefore, the plaintiff is not in a position to examine the said person. The plaintiff in the aforesaid application also contended that in place of Sh. Rajendera Kalra, one sh. Subhash Sharma has been appointed as new AR of the plaintiff and plaintiff prayed for permission to examine the said Sh. Subhash Sharma the new AR of the plaintiff. The application was not opposed by the defendant and same was allowed.
12. On 06.07.2012 the counsel for the defendant submitted that after going through the accounts the defendant is ready to pay Rs. 3,14,819/- to the plaintiff towards total due amount. However, the counsel for the plaintiff submitted that total amount due is more than the amount stated by the defendant. On 06.07.2012 the defendant has given the DD bearing no. 424045 dt. 05.07.2012 in the sum of Rs. 3,14,819/- to the plaintiff and Sh. Subhash Sharma AR of the plaintiff accepted the same without prejudice to the claim for balance amount. The plaintiff continued the suit for the balance amount as claimed by the plaintiff.
13. Thereafter, the plaintiff has examined Sh. Subhash Sharma as PW-2 who has tender his evidence by way of affidavit vide EX PW-2/A and additional evidence by way of affidavit EX.PW-2/B. PW-2 in his evidence also relied upon the documents which were already brought on record and exhibited through PW-1, Sh. Rajendera Kalra previous AR Suit No. 321/11/13 M/s Hellmann Worldwide Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Aditya Chordia Proprietor, "Rajul Exports".
8of the plaintiff. However, thereafter, the PW-2 was also not cross examined on behalf of the defendant and right to cross examine PW-2 on behalf of defendant has been closed vide order dt. 19.10.2010. After, that many opportunity were granted to defendant to lead defense evidence but defendant failed to lead the DE and the defense evidence of the defendant was closed on 28.03.2013.
14. As none appeared on behalf of the defendant for final argument despite many opportunities and hence the argument on behalf of plaintiff has been heard. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the plaintiff, as well as also considered the contentions made by the defendant in the WS. I have also perused the evidence on record and gone through the file.
15. My issues wise findings are as under:
16. Issue no. (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of suit amount from defendant as prayed for? ....OPP The onus to prove this issues is upon the plaintiff, so as to prove this issue the plaintiff has examined Sh. Rajendera Kalra as PW-1, and Sh. Subhash Sharma as PW-2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery in the sum of Rs. 6,06,623.76 along with interest against the defendant. However, counsel for the defendant on 06.07.2012 stated before the Ld. Predecessor court that after going through the accounts, the defendant is ready to pay 3,14,819/- to the plaintiff towards total due amount. Counsel for the defendant on 06.07.2012 gave a DD bearing no. 424045 for a sum of Rs. 3,14,819/- to Sh. Subhash Sharma AR of the plaintiff, who accepted the same without prejudiced to claim Suit No. 321/11/13 M/s Hellmann Worldwide Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Aditya Chordia Proprietor, "Rajul Exports".
9for balance amount. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted before the Ld. Predecessor court on 23.08.2012 that the plaintiff will continue the suit proceedings for balance suit amount.
17. As such, in view of the aforesaid facts, after payment of 3,14,819/- to the plaintiff by the defendant, now, the claim of the plaintiff is restricted only to Rs. 2,91,804.76 i.e, is the remaining balance amount. The PW-1, Rajendera Kalra has filed his evidence by way of affidavit vide EX. PW-1/A, and relied upon the documents EX. PW-1/1 to EX. PW 1/23 and also relied upon the documents marked as mark A to H. PW-1 also relied upon the document EX. PW- 1/24 which is Certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act. The defendant has not cross examine PW-1 as initially the cross examination of the PW-1 was deferred at the request of counsel for the defendant and thereafter, the PW-1 did not appear as he left the plaintiff company.
18. As such, thereafter, Sh. Subhash Sharma has been examined as PW-2. PW-2 Subhash Sharma has filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-2/A and additional affidavit Ex. PW-2/B. PW-1 also relied upon the documents already brought on record by PW-1, namely Sh. Rajendera Kalra, the previous AR of the plaintiff company.
19. PW-1 and PW-2 have proved the relied upon documents of the plaintiff i.e, fresh certificate of Incorporation Consequent upon change of name EX.PW-1/1, Sub-Delegation of specific powers dt. 15.10.2008 EX.PW-1/2, EX.PW-1/3 Invoice dt. 5.11.2009, EX.PW-1/4 invoice dt. 07.01.2010, EX.PW-1/5 invoice dt. 07.01.2010, EX.PW-1/6 invoice dt. 11.02.2010, EX.PW-1/7 invoice dt. 11.02.2010, EX.PW-1/8 invoice dt. 22.04.2010, EX.PW-1/9 invoice dt. 23.04.2010, EX.PW-1/10 statement of Suit No. 321/11/13 M/s Hellmann Worldwide Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Aditya Chordia Proprietor, "Rajul Exports".
10account as on 24.02.2011, EX.PW-1/11 certified copy of the cheque dt. 10.03.2010, EX.PW-1/12 certified copy of returning advice dt. 23.04.2010, EX.PW-1/13 certified copy of legal notice dt. 29.04.2010, EX.PW-1/14 certified copy of speed post receipt dt. 01.05.2010, EX.PW- 1/15 courier receipt dt. 01.05.2010, EX.PW-1/16 UPC dt. 01.05.2010, EX.PW-1/17 certified copy of consignment tracking details report dt. 12.05.2010, EX.PW-1/18 certified copy of A.D. card, EX.PW-1/19 certified copy of complaint filed by u/s 142 and 138 of NI Act, EX.PW-1/20 legal notice dt. 09.12.2010, EX.PW-21 postal receipt of the same dt. 10.12.2010, EX.PW-1/22 courier receipt dt. 10.12.2010, EX.PW-1/23 registered AD dt. 10.12.2010 and EX. PW-1/24 certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act.
20. The defendant has failed to cross examine PW-1 as well as PW-2. Defendant has also failed to lead the defense evidence despite of opportunities and opportunity to lead DE was closed on 28.03.2013 by the Ld. Predecessor Court.
21. As the defendant has already paid the sum of Rs. 3,14,819/- to the plaintiff, as such now the claim of the plaintiff is restricted only to remaining balance amount of Rs. 2,91,804.76, out of total 6,60,623.76. The plaintiff witness have proved documents place on records as relied upon by the plaintiff. The plaintiff witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 have also proved the certified copy of statement of account vide EX. PW-1/10, whereby as on 24.02.2011 an amount of Rs. 5,17,271.76 has been shown as balance. Vide legal notice dt. 09.12.2010 the plaintiff has called upon the defendant to pay the aforesaid amount of RS 5,17,271.76 along with interest @18% per annum. The plaintiff Suit No. 321/11/13 M/s Hellmann Worldwide Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Aditya Chordia Proprietor, "Rajul Exports".
11witnesses have proved the said legal notice dt. 09.12.2010 vide EX. PW-1/20. Plaintiff witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 have also prove the invoices placed on records vide Ex.PW-1/3 to EX.PW-1/9. As such the plaintiff witnesses have categorically proved the documents placed on records. The defendant has failed to controvert the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 as despite opportunities the defendant failed to cross examine the aforesaid witnesses. Moreover, the defendant has also failed to lead the defense evidence so as to established the contention of the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff has proved its case against the defendant. From the perusal of invoices placed on records vide EX.PW-1/3 to EX.PW-1/9 as well as statement of account vide EX. PW-1/10, the plaintiff witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 have proved the claim put forth by the plaintiff against the defendant. Otherwise, also the defendant has not sent the reply to the notice sent by the plaintiff, thereby, demanding the amounts payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. As the defendant failed to reply the notices, hence, an adverse inference can be drawn against the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff witnesses have established and proved the claim of the plaintiff against the defendant. As the defendant has already paid sum of Rs. 3,14,819/- (Rupees three lacs fourteen thousand eight hundred and nineteen only) to the plaintiff out of total amount of 6,06,623.76 (Rupees six lacs six thousand six hundred twenty three and seventy six paisa only), hence the plaintiff is entitled for balance amount of Rs. 2,91,804.76 (Rupees two lacs ninety one thousand eight hundred four and seventy six paisa only) along with interest. The issue no. 1 is accordingly decided partly in favour of the Suit No. 321/11/13 M/s Hellmann Worldwide Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Aditya Chordia Proprietor, "Rajul Exports".
12plaintiff and against the defendant in aforesaid terms for balance recovery.
22. Issue no. (2) Whether this court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? .....OPP The onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff. The defendant has contended in the written statement that this court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit as the suit of the plaintiff is based on bills raised by them to the defendant, and it is pertinent to mention that vide sub-delegation dt. 15.10.2008 and resolution dt. 24.11.2006, the office of the plaintiff is situated at DLF Ciber City, Building no.9, 14th floor, Tower-A, Phase-III, Gurgaon-122002 and registered office at 110, 1st floor, Prakashdeep Building, 7th Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi-110001. However, the plaintiff contended that the address mentioned on document dt. 15.10.2008 and 24.11.2006 is the address of corporate office of the plaintiff company. Plaintiff in the replication as well as the PW-2 in the evidence by way of affidavit stated that all the relevant transaction were handled from the regional office situated at 91, Bijwasan Road, Kapashera, New Delhi and at the relevant point of time the plaintiff company was having its regional office at Bijwasan Road, Kapashera, New Delhi. The defendant has failed to cross examine the plaintiff witnesses so as to controvert that the transactions were not carried out from the above stated regional office of the plaintiff company and also failed to controvert the witnesses that the regional office of plaintiff company is not situated at Bijwasan Road, Kapashera, New Delhi. Further the defendant has also failed to lead defense Suit No. 321/11/13 M/s Hellmann Worldwide Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Aditya Chordia Proprietor, "Rajul Exports".
13evidence, so as to established that the regional office of the plaintiff is not situated at aforesaid address and the transactions was not carried out with the defendant from the aforesaid regional office. Moreover, in all the invoices placed on records vide EX.PW-1/3 to EX. PW-1/9 the address of the plaintiff company in all the aforesaid invoices, have been mentioned as 91, Bijwasan Road, Kapashera, New Delhi-110037. The plaintiff witnesses have proved the aforesaid invoices EX.PW-1/3 to EX. PW-1/9 in their evidence. Hence, the plaintiff has established that transactions were carried out and took place from the said regional office at 91, Bijwasan Road, Kapashera, New Delhi-110037. As such there is no substance in the contention of the defendant that this court has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present matter. Contrary to objection of the defendant regarding the territorial jurisdiction of this court, the plaintiff has categorically proved that this court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. Therefore, issue no. 2 is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
23. Issue no. (3) Whether the suit is bad for joinder/non-joinder of necessary parties? .....OPD The onus to prove this issue is upon the defendant. The defendant has contended in the WS that suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary and proper parties as the suit is filed only against the present defendant, however, as per the e-mails between the plaintiff and defendant marked as annexure D-1, it clearly shows that V.S. International is the CHA of the defendant and some Suit No. 321/11/13 M/s Hellmann Worldwide Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Aditya Chordia Proprietor, "Rajul Exports".
14payments out of the total disputed amount is to be paid by V.S. International and therefore, V.S. International is also necessary and proper party in the suit. On the other hand the plaintiff denied the aforesaid contention of the defendant. Plaintiff also denied the contention of the defendant that V.S. International is the necessary and proper party to the present suit. It is further denied by the plaintiff that some of the disputed payment has to be made by the said V.S. International. Plaintiff categorically stated that plaintiff is not having any privity of contract with the said V.S. International. The defendant has failed to lead defense evidence to prove its contention that the V.S. International is a necessary party or some payments were to be paid by V. S. International. The defendant has failed to prove its contention. Moreover, the defendant has also failed to cross examine the plaintiff witnesses, so as to controvert the plaintiff witnesses regarding the aforesaid contention of the defendant that V. S. International is a necessary party or some payments were to be paid by V. S. International. It was incumbent upon the defendant either to cross examine the plaintiff witnesses, so as to controvert the plaintiff case and to extract something material from the plaintiff witnesses in respect of contention of the defendant or to lead the defense evidence to prove the aforesaid contention of the defendant. However, the defendant failed to cross examine the plaintiff witnesses and also did not lead the defense evidence, hence, there is no force in the contention of the defendant regarding non-joinder of necessary parties. As such, the defendant has failed to prove the issue no. 3. Accordingly, the issue no. 3 is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
Suit No. 321/11/13 M/s Hellmann Worldwide Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Aditya Chordia Proprietor, "Rajul Exports".
1524. Relief:
As held above, issue no. 1 and 2 has been decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and issue no. 3 has been decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff. While deciding issue no. 1, it has been held that plaintiff is entitled for recovery of balance amount in the sum of Rs. 2,91,804.76 (Rupees two lacs ninety one thousand eight hundred four and seventy six paisa only) from the defendant along with interest.
Therefore, suit of the plaintiff is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for recovery in the sum of Rs. 2,91,804.76 (Rupees two lacs ninety one thousand eight hundred four and seventy six paisa only) along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization of the decreetal amount.
25. Plaintiff is also entitled to cost.
26. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
27. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON DATED 27.11.2014 (LAL SINGH) ADJ-03(SW)/ DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
Suit No. 321/11/13 M/s Hellmann Worldwide Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Aditya Chordia Proprietor, "Rajul Exports".
16Suit No. 321/11/13 Hellmann Worldwide Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Aditya Chordia 27/11/2014 Present: None.
Vide my separate judgment of even date, suit of the plaintiff is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for recovery in the sum of Rs. 2,91,804.76 (Rupees two lacs ninety one thousand eight hundred four and seventy six paisa only) along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization of the decreetal amount.
Plaintiff is also entitled to cost.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
(LAL SINGH) ADJ-03(SW)/ DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
Suit No. 321/11/13 M/s Hellmann Worldwide Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Aditya Chordia Proprietor, "Rajul Exports".