Delhi High Court
Bei Confluence Communication ... vs M.R.S. Filmcraft & Advertisement ... on 14 November, 2008
Author: Hima Kohli
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS)1767/2007 & IA No.1724/2008 Date of decision : 14.11.2008
IN THE MATTER OF :
# BEI CONFLUENCE COMMUNICATION LTD ..... Plaintiff
Through : Mr. M.K. Sethi, Adv.
Versus
$ M.R.S. FILMCRAFT & ADVERTISEMENT PVT. LTD
& ORS. ..... Defendants
Through : None
CORAM
* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
1.
Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No
HIMA KOHLI, J. (O R A L )
The present suit is instituted by the plaintiff under the provisions of Order XXXVII of CPC for recovery of Rs.39,85,574/- against the defendants along with interest.
2. The suit was registered and summons were issued to the defendants, vide order dated 1.10.2007. Appearance was entered on behalf of the defendants by filing an application being IA No.1724/2007, as recorded in the order dated 8.2.2008. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application being IA No.2708/2008 for issuance of summons of judgment against the defendants. The said application was allowed, vide order dated 3.3.2008 and summons of judgments were directed to be issued in the prescribed proforma upon the defendants. Vide order dated 25.8.2008, it was recorded that summons issued on 20.5.2008 were received back with the report of refusal. Despite the service of summons of judgments, leave to defend has not been filed by the defendants. None was present on behalf of the defendants on the first call and the matter was passed over to await the defendants. Even at 2.55 PM none is present for the defendants.
3. The plaintiff is a company registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and is stated to be engaged in the business of providing consultancy of communications including advertisements and media service. The summary suit is instituted on behalf of the plaintiff company through its Managing Director, who has been authorized to institute the present proceedings by the Board of Directors of the plaintiff company, vide Resolution dated 15.6.2004. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant No.1 is a company of which the defendant No.2 is the Managing Director and the defendant No.3 is the Director, who entered into an agreement with the plaintiff dated 19.6.2004, for release of newspaper advertisements, publication, market promotion, etc., related ventures undertaken by the defendant No.1 company.
4. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that acting on the aforesaid agreement, the plaintiff released various newspaper advertisements in prominent newspapers of the country on behalf of the defendants and raised invoices on them. The defendants made the payment of Rs.1,02,492/- by cheque and in discharge of the remaining liability against invoices raised by the plaintiff for the work done to the tune of Rs.44,04,872/-, the defendants No.2 & 3 issued four cheques on behalf of the defendant company totalling to Rs.39,85,574/-. The details of the four cheques of Rs.22,35,297/-, Rs.11,71,747/-, Rs.51,002/- and Rs.5,27,528/- find mention in para 5 of the plaint.
5. It is stated by the counsel for the plaintiff that when the aforesaid cheques were presented by the plaintiff company to the bankers of the defendants, they were returned with the return memo indicating therein that three cheques were unpaid on account of insufficient funds, while the cheque for Rs.11,71,447/- was returned with the remarks, 'Account Closed'. Photocopies of the aforesaid cheques are enclosed with the list of documents, originals of which are stated be on the record of the proceedings instituted by the plaintiff against the defendants under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
6. It is further stated that being aggrieved due to non-payment of the outstanding amount and the dishonour of the cheques issued by the defendants, the plaintiff issued a series of legal notices dated 21.10.2004, 2.11.2004 and 17.12.2004 for payment against the aforesaid cheques, by Regd. AD post and UPC, calling upon the defendants to clear the outstanding amount. However, despite service of the said notices, the defendants did not make the payment of the amounts, nor did they clear the remaining outstanding dues, which were to the tune of Rs.44,04,872/-. The plaintiff was thus compelled to file a complaint case against the defendants under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of the aforesaid cheques, which counsel for the plaintiff states is pending trial.
7. In view of the averments made in the plaint and the documents placed on the record by the plaintiff, which remain unrebutted on behalf of the defendants, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree in its favour in respect of the value of the cheques issued by the defendants for the service rendered by the plaintiff, totalling to Rs.39,85,574/-. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff is also entitled to interest on the value of the aforesaid amount.
8. Accordingly, a decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants for a sum of Rs.39,85,574/-, being the value of the cheque amounts issued by the defendants to the plaintiff along with simple interest @ 9% per annum. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.
9. The suit as also the pending application are disposed of.
HIMA KOHLI,J
NOVEMBER 14, 2008
sk
