Delhi District Court
Scj Plastic Ltd vs M/S Asian Thai Food & Investment (P) Ltd on 19 March, 2018
Page no. 1 of 5
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUSHIL ANUJ TYAGI, JUDGE SMALL
CAUSE COURTCUMADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGECUM
GUARDIAN JUDGE, SOUTHEAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURT
COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
CS No: 599/17
IN THE MATTER OF :
SCJ Plastic Ltd.
F3/1011, Okhla Industrial Area
Phase1
New Delhi110020
.....Plaintiff
VERSUS
M/s Asian Thai Food & Investment (P) Ltd
Regd. Office at:
39A, Madhya Marg
Ground Floor
DLFII
Gurgaon122002
Works at :
Plot no. 14, Sector 3
SIDCUL
IIE Pantnagar, 263153
(Udham Singh Nagar)
.....Defendant
Date of Institution : 18.05.2017
Date of reserving order : Not reserved.
Date of Judgment : 19.03.2018
CS No. 599/17 (Sushil Anuj Tyagi)
SCJ PLASTIC VS. ASIAN THAI FOOD & INVESTMENT JSCCcumASCJcumGuardian Judge
South East, Saket Courts:New Delhi
19.03.2018
Page no. 2 of 5
JUDGMENT:
1. This is a suit under Order 37 CPC, filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of Rs. 2,99,950/ alongwith interest @ 24 % p.a from the date of filing of suit till its realization with costs.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff had been supplying goods to the defendant and on 01.04.2014, balance payment of Rs. 3,54,904/ was due from the defendant to the plaintiff. Beside the said balance payment, vide three invoices dated 09.04.2014, 17.05.2014 and 31.05.2014, the defendant purchased more master batches worth Rs. 3,38,981/ on credit of 30 days and the plaintiff have always accepted and adjusted the payment on FIFO basis. The goods vide the aforesaid 3 invoices were sent to the defendants through transporter Raj Laxmi Express Transport Company and the same has been accepted by the defendant. It is further submitted that with respect to the first two invoices bearing no. 089 & 534 dated 09.04.2014 and 17.05.2014 of amount 1,32,429/ and 98,107/ respectively, the defendant had issued the sale tax form 'C' also. It is submitted that defendant has to pay a total amount of Rs. 6,93,885/ but since 21.05.2014 till date the defendant has remitted part payment of Rs. 5,18,885/ vide various cheques which has been accepted and adjusted only on FIFO basis and a balance amount of Rs. 1,75,000/ is still due from the defendant to the plaintiff and as on date the defendant is also liable to pay Rs. 1,24,950/ as an interest and thus as on date the defendant is liable to pay Rs. 2,99,950/ to the plaintiff. It is further alleged that plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 18.04.2017 but the CS No. 599/17 (Sushil Anuj Tyagi) SCJ PLASTIC VS. ASIAN THAI FOOD & INVESTMENT JSCCcumASCJcumGuardian Judge South East, Saket Courts:New Delhi 19.03.2018 Page no. 3 of 5 defendant did not reply the legal notice and hence the present suit.
3. Summons were duly served upon the defendant by registered acknowledged post and the acknowledgement has been received back. Despite service, the defendant neither appeared nor filed any application for appearance as required under Order 37 CPC.
4. I have heard the arguments on behalf of plaintiff and perused the material available on record carefully.
5. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Lohmann Rausher GMBH Vs. Medisphere Marketing Pvt Ltd 117 (2004) Delhi Law Times 95 observed as follows:
"15.It is apparent that a suit which seeks to recover a debt or a liquidated demand in money payable by the defendant arising out of a written contract is maintainable under Order 37 Rule 1 as a summary suit. It is no longer resintegra that invoices/bills are "written contracts" within the contemplation of Order 37 Rule 2. Reference could conveniently be made to decisions of this court reported as M/s Punjab Pen House Vs. Samrat Bicycle Limited, AIR 1992, Delhi 1; Corporate Voice Private Limited Vs. Uniroll Leather India Limited, 60 (1995) DLT 321; Beackon Electronics Vs. Sylvania & Laxman Limited, 1998 (3) AD Delhi 141; and M/s KIG Systel Limited Vs. M/s Fujitsu ICIM Ltd, 92 (2001) DLT 88 = AIR 2001 Delhi 357.
18. It is not the case of the defendant that the invoices do not conform to the purchase order. As noted, the invoices raised contain the description of the goods, quantity and price. As noted, conditions of payment stand reflected in the invoice. Additionally, delivery address also finds mentioned CS No. 599/17 (Sushil Anuj Tyagi) SCJ PLASTIC VS. ASIAN THAI FOOD & INVESTMENT JSCCcumASCJcumGuardian Judge South East, Saket Courts:New Delhi 19.03.2018 Page no. 4 of 5 in the invoice. All feature pertaining to a contract of sale of goods are to be reflected in the two invoices. The invoices are a complete contract, required by law, where the contract pertains to sale of goods.
19. The invoices in question would, therefore, fall within the category of a written contract within the contemplation of Order 37 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure."
6. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in U. K. Paints (India) Ltd. Vs. Surlux Medi Equip Ltd & Anrs observed as follows:
"5. Since this is a suit under summary procedure of Order 37 CPC the same has to be decreed in view of the provisions of Order 37 Rule 2 subrule (3) CPC which provide that if the defendant does not enter into appearance within ten days of such service the allegations in the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted and the plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree not exceeding the sum mentioned therein together with interest at the rate of specified."
7. Despite service by way of summons, none appeared on behalf of defendant within the stipulated period of 10 days of service or till today. As per Order 37 Rule 2 (3)CPC, the defendant shall not defend the suit referred to in sub rule (1) unless he enters an appearance and in default of his entering an appearance the allegations in the Plaint shall be deemed to be admitted and the plaintiff shall be entitled to judgment forthwith in accordance with Order 37 rule 2(3) CPC.
8. The suit of the plaintiff is on the basis of invoices dated 09.04.2014, 17.05.2014 and 31.05.2014 & legal notice dated 18.04.2017. The suit of the plaintiff is within the prescribed period of limitation as prescribed under the limitation Act.
CS No. 599/17 (Sushil Anuj Tyagi)
SCJ PLASTIC VS. ASIAN THAI FOOD & INVESTMENT JSCCcumASCJcumGuardian Judge
South East, Saket Courts:New Delhi
19.03.2018
Page no. 5 of 5
9. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs. 2,99,950/.
10. No order as to costs.
11. Decree sheet to this effect be drawn accordingly.
12. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (Sushil Anuj Tyagi)
today i.e on 19.03.2018 JSCCcumASCJcumGJ
South East, Saket Courts:New Delhi
19.03.2018
CS No. 599/17 (Sushil Anuj Tyagi)
SCJ PLASTIC VS. ASIAN THAI FOOD & INVESTMENT JSCCcumASCJcumGuardian Judge
South East, Saket Courts:New Delhi
19.03.2018