Delhi District Court
Paytm E Commerce Pvt. Ltd vs Sh. Jayesh Kumar K Khokhar on 27 September, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEELAM SINGH
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL)-02, SOUTH EAST
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS (COMM)-430/2021
In the matter of
PAI Platforms Pvt Ltd.
Having its registered office at:
136, First Floor, Devika Tower,
Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019
Corporate Office at:
B-121, Sector-5, Noida,
Uttar Pradesh- 201301 ........Plaintiff
VERSUS
Jayesh Kumar K Khokhar
Proprietor of
M/s Shreeji Fashion
B-313/314, New Bombay Market,
Umaravada, Surat-395010 .......Defendant
Date of Institution of suit : 30.09.2021
Date of Reserving of judgment : 27.09.2024
Date of Judgment : 27.09.2024
Final Decision : Decreed
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit for recovery has been filed by the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 24,81,524/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Eighty One Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty Four Only) against the defendant.
2.1 Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff company is incorporated under the provisions of The Companies Act, 2013 having its registered office at 136, Devika Towers, Nehru Place CS (COMM)-430/2021 PAI Platforms Pvt Ltd. Vs. Jayesh Kumar K Khokhar Page 1/9 and Corporate Office at B-121, Sector 5, Noida, Uttar Pradesh and is engaged in the business of providing online marketplace platform for facilitating online shopping and Sh. Lokesh Sugandh, has been duly authorized to contest the present suit on behalf of plaintiff company. That the plaintiff company is running an online shopping portal in the name and style of www.paytmmall.com along with a mobile application in the name of 'Paytm Mall & Bazaar' which act as an intermediary and provides a platform to various sellers offering different kinds of products to the buyers. 2.2 That the defendant approached the plaintiff company and showed that he is desirous of selling its products to prospective customers using the plaintiff company's above-said online portal/platform including the mobile application. Therefore, relying upon the said representations of the defendant, the plaintiff company entered into a Market Place Agreement dated 11.07.2017 with defendant and in pursuant to defendant agreeing to the terms and conditions of the Market Place Agreement, defendant was registered as a merchant with the plaintiff company and was allotted a Merchant ID No. 75473. Thereafter, the defendant executed various transaction(s)/order(s) on the online platform of the plaintiff company using the said Merchant ID. 2.3 That as per the business model of the plaintiff company when a customer places an order through the platform of the plaintiff company on the merchant, the amount with respect to the placed order is received by the plaintiff company which is remitted by the plaintiff company to the seller. However, if a customer opts to return the product due to whatsoever reason as CS (COMM)-430/2021 PAI Platforms Pvt Ltd. Vs. Jayesh Kumar K Khokhar Page 2/9 per the return policy of the plaintiff company, product is returned back to the seller and the amount is outrightly refunded back to customer by the plaintiff company and the returned amount to the customer is deducted from the running account of the seller or adjusted in future order. That defendant deliberately, intentionally and to usurp money due and payable to the plaintiff company, in utter violation of the agreement abruptly and without any advance notice or intimation stopped doing business transaction at the e- commerce portal/mobile app of the plaintiff company from 17 th January, 2018.
2.4 That act and misconduct of defendant manifestly demonstrated that defendant never intended to clear the outstanding dues payable to the plaintiff company and the only intention of defendant was to make profits by using the platform of the plaintiff company and to abandon the platform of the plaintiff company without making the overdue payment. That the plaintiff company repeatedly and continuously approached the defendant for the payment of outstanding dues of Rs. 18,65,808/- but defendant never had the intention to clear the outstanding dues payable to the plaintiff company.
2.5 That officers of the plaintiff company from time to time had also brought to the knowledge of defendant about the outstanding amount of Rs. 18,65,808/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Sixty Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Eight Only) but in vain. That the plaintiff company has also sent a demand notice dated 30.09.2019 to the defendant calling upon defendant to immediately discharge amount of Rs. 18,65,808/- but defendant despite receipt of said CS (COMM)-430/2021 PAI Platforms Pvt Ltd. Vs. Jayesh Kumar K Khokhar Page 3/9 notice, bitterly failed to abide by the same. Hence, the present suit.
3. Perusal of the record reveals that summons of the suit were ordered to be issued upon the defendant on 14.10.2022 by Ld. Predecessor of this court. However, defendant remained unserved and plaintiff was directed to take steps for substituted service upon the defendant. Despite various opportunities, no steps were taken by plaintiff for substituted service upon the defendant. Hence, on 21.03.2024, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed in default and for non prosecution. Thereafter, an application was moved on behalf of plaintiff under order IX Rule 4 r/w section 151 CPC for restoration of the suit to its original number and the said application was allowed by this court vide order dated 05.06.2024 subject to cost of Rs. 1,000/- and plaintiff was further directed to take steps for substituted service upon the defendant. On 01.07.2024 an application was moved on behalf of plaintiff under section 151 CPC for taking on record the new name of plaintiff company. The said application was also allowed and the name of plaintiff company was changed from PAYTM E Commerce Pvt Ltd. to PAI Platforms Pvt Ltd and amended memo was taken on record. Thereafter, defendant was served through publication in newspapers "Jai Hind" dated 02.08.2024 and "Times of India"
dated 03.08.2024, both Gujarat Edition. However, despite being duly served neither defendant had appeared nor filed his WS. Hence, on 03.09.2024, the right of the defendant to file the WS was closed and he was also proceeded exparte by this court and matter was further fixed for exparte plaintiff's evidence. Plaintiff CS (COMM)-430/2021 PAI Platforms Pvt Ltd. Vs. Jayesh Kumar K Khokhar Page 4/9 in order to substantiate its claim has filed evidence by way of affidavit and examined AR for the plaintiff Sh. Jitender Kumar as PW-1 who tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and proved the following documents:-
1. Certification of incorporation dated 16.08.2016 is Ex.PW1/1 (OSR).
2. Fresh certificate of incorporation dated 08.02.2024 is Ex.PW1/2 (OSR).
3. Board resolution dated 02.05.2019 is Ex.PW1/3 (OSR).
4. Board resolution dated 09.08.2023 and 10.06.2024 are Ex.PW1/4 (colly) (OSR).
5. Authorization letter dated 29.05.2024 is Ex.PW1/5 (OSR).
6. Market Place agreement dated 11.07.2017 is Ex.PW1/6.
7. Seller panel is Ex.PW1/7 (running into 48 pages).
8. Statement of account is Ex.PW1/8.
9. Demand notice dated 30.09.2019 is Ex.PW1/9.
10. Legal notice dated 03.04.2021 is Ex.PW1/10.
11. Postal receipts dated 05.04.2021 is Ex.PW1/11.
12. Tracking report is Ex.PW1/12.
13. Certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW1/13.
4. In order to adjudicate upon the suit, I have heard Ld. Counsel for plaintiff. During the hearing, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has submitted that the case of the plaintiff stands duly proved by virtue of the unchallenged testimony of AR for plaintiff company Sh. Jitender Kumar and therefore, plaintiff should be granted the CS (COMM)-430/2021 PAI Platforms Pvt Ltd. Vs. Jayesh Kumar K Khokhar Page 5/9 decree, as prayed for.
5. After perusing the record of the Court file and considering the submissions of Ld. Counsel for plaintiff, I find that the suit of the plaintiff has been filed on 30.09.2021 and is within the prescribed period of limitation. Further, I find that this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the present suit as plaintiff has its branch office at Nehru Place, New Delhi and cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this court.
I have fortified my view with the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in 'Auto Movers Vs. Luminous Power Technologies Pvt. Ltd., (2021) SCC Online Delhi 4387.
6.1 PW-1 has categorically deposed that the defendant approached the plaintiff company and showed that he is desirous of selling its products to prospective customers using the plaintiff company's above-said online portal/platform including the mobile application. Therefore, relying upon the said representations of the defendant, the plaintiff company entered into a Market Place Agreement dated 11.07.2017 with defendant and in pursuant to defendant agreeing to the terms and conditions of the Market Place Agreement, defendant was registered as a merchant with the plaintiff company and was allotted a Merchant ID No. 75473. Thereafter, the defendant executed various transaction(s)/order(s) on the online platform of the plaintiff company using the said Merchant ID.
6.2 That as per the business model of the plaintiff company CS (COMM)-430/2021 PAI Platforms Pvt Ltd. Vs. Jayesh Kumar K Khokhar Page 6/9 when a customer places an order through the platform of the plaintiff company on the merchant, the amount with respect to the placed order is received by the plaintiff company which is remitted by the plaintiff company to the seller. However, if a customer opts to return the product due to whatsoever reason as per the return policy of the plaintiff company, product is returned back to the seller and the amount is outrightly refunded back to customer by the plaintiff company and the returned amount to the customer is deducted from the running account of the seller or adjusted in future order. That defendant deliberately, intentionally and to usurp money due and payable to the plaintiff company, in utter violation of the agreement abruptly and without any advance notice or intimation stopped doing business transaction at the e- commerce portal/mobile app of the plaintiff company from 17 th January, 2018.
6.3 That act and misconduct of defendant manifestly demonstrated that defendant never intended to clear the outstanding dues payable to the plaintiff company and the only intention of defendant was to make profits by using the platform of the plaintiff company and to abandon the platform of the plaintiff company without making the overdue payment. That the plaintiff company repeatedly and continuously approached the defendant for the payment of outstanding dues of Rs. 18,65,808/- but defendant never had the intention to clear the outstanding dues payable to the plaintiff company.
6.4 That officers of the plaintiff company from time to time had also brought to the knowledge of defendant about the outstanding CS (COMM)-430/2021 PAI Platforms Pvt Ltd. Vs. Jayesh Kumar K Khokhar Page 7/9 amount of Rs. 18,65,808/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Sixty Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Eight Only) but in vain. That the plaintiff company has also sent a demand notice dated 30.09.2019 to the defendant calling upon defendant to immediately discharge amount of Rs. 18,65,808/- but defendant despite receipt of said notice, bitterly failed to abide by the same. The testimony of PW-1 has gone unrebutted and uncontroverted without any challenge as defendant has chosen not to appear or contest the suit. As far as liability of defendant is concerned the same stands proved in view of the unrebutted testimony of PW-1.
7. As regards the rate of interest claimed by the Plaintiff is concerned, I am of the considered opinion that as per the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra AIR 2001, Supreme Court 3095, the grant of pendente- lite and future interest is a subject matter of the discretion of the Court and not to be governed by the agreement between the parties. Accordingly in exercise of the discretionary power of this Court, I have granted pendente-lite and future interest at the rate of 6% p.a. to the Plaintiff because Section 34 of CPC, 1908 as well as the provisions of the Interest Act, 1978, contemplate grant of interest at the rate of 6% per annum and because in the past decade, the nationalized banks have also granted interest at the rate of 5-6% per annum, on terms deposit.
8. Thus, as a net result of the aforesaid, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for an amount of Rs. 24,81,524/- (Rupees Twenty Four CS (COMM)-430/2021 PAI Platforms Pvt Ltd. Vs. Jayesh Kumar K Khokhar Page 8/9 Lakhs Eighty One Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty Four Only) along with the interest pendente-lite and future interest @ 6% p.a. till its realization.
9. The Suit of the Plaintiff is decreed accordingly.
10. Decree sheet be drawn by the Reader of this Court and file be consigned to Record Room. Digitally signed by NEELAM NEELAM SINGH SINGH Date:
Announced & dictated in the 2024.09.27
17:28:45
open Court on this +0530
27th September, 2024 (NEELAM SINGH)
District Judge
(Commercial Court-02)
South-East, Saket Courts, ND
27.09.2024
CS (COMM)-430/2021 PAI Platforms Pvt Ltd. Vs. Jayesh Kumar K Khokhar Page 9/9
CS (COMM)-430/2021
PAI Platforms Pvt Ltd. Vs. Jayesh Kumar K Khokhar 27.09.2024 Present: Sh. Rohit Jain, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
Defendant is already exparte.
PW-1 has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit. Vide separate statement of AR for plaintiff, PE stands closed.
Exparte final arguments heard.
Vide separate judgment announced in the open court, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
(NEELAM SINGH) District Judge (Commercial Court-02) South-East, Saket Courts, ND 27.09.2024 jm CS (COMM)-430/2021 PAI Platforms Pvt Ltd. Vs. Jayesh Kumar K Khokhar Page 10/9 CS (COMM)-430/2021 PAI Platforms Pvt Ltd. Vs. Jayesh Kumar K Khokhar Page 11/9